IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 610 of 2008() --------------------- AS.71/1998 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.109/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------- MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOOTHEDATH MAMMUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATHIPOTTA, EDAYOOR, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------- MUIDUTTY, S/O.KOOTTALA ENTHEENKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANTHAVANAD AMSOM & DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 610 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th August, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment in A.S.No.71 of 1998, on the file of Sub Court, Tirur, as no second appeal will lie, the amount claimed in the suit being only Rs.2190/=. Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff. Both petitioner and respondent are petty shop owners. The case of the respondent was that petitioner used to purchase grocery items from his shop during 1994 on credit basis and though Rs.2190/= was due, petitioner did not pay the same and in spite of notice, petitioner did not pay. Therefore, suit was filed for realisation of the amount. Petitioner resisted the suit contending that he never purchased any articles from the shop of the respondent on credit and he is not liable to pay any amount, and, therefore, suit is to be dismissed. Munsiff, on the evidence of respondent as PW.1 and petitioner as DW.1, Exts.A1 to A3(a), did not believe the case of the respondent and accepted the case CRP.No.610/2008. 2 of the petitioner and dismissed the suit. It was challenged before Sub Court in A.S.No.71 of 1998. Learned Sub Judge, on re- appreciation of the evidence, found that learned Munsiff did not properly appreciate the evidence. It was found that evidence of PW.1 could not have been believed and the case of the respondent is acceptable, and, a decree for realisation of Rs.2190/= with interest was awarded. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Munsiff properly appreciated the evidence and First Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of the trial court. It was argued that petitioner specifically pleaded that he did not purchase any articles from the shop of the respondent on credit and there is no evidence to establish that petitioner at any time purchased any article from the shop of the respondent on credit or any amount is due for the purchase CRP.No.610/2008. 3 made, and, therefore, judgment of the Appellate Court is to be set aside. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, and on going through the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court . Though the trial court did not accept the case of respondent, first appellate court analysed each and every item of the evidence and circumstances, and found that the case of the respondent is believable, case of the petitioner cannot be believed. The learned counsel argued that appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court was not proper and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of DW.1. 5. Exercising the power under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the finding of this Court to that of First Appellate court. First Appellate Court has all the powers of the trial court. First Appellate Court in exercise of that power elaborately considered the entire evidence and found that case of the CRP.No.610/2008. 4 petitioner that he did not purchase the grocery items from the shop of the respondent cannot be believed. Learned Sub Judge has given cogent reasons for the finding. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the revision. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.