THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1363 OF 2011 01.07.2011 Between: Rimmalapudi Govindaraju …Petitioner AND Yarlagadda Venkatarao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1363 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent filed the suit being O.S.No.315 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,000/- with subsequent interest towards arrears of rent in respect of 1111.11 square yards (929 square meters). The suit was decreed. The petitioners appealed. The same being A.S.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada was dismissed on 08.10.2010. In view of Section 102 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) barring second appeal if the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner/defendant filed the instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In this order, the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. The plaintiff alleged that the suit schedule property was let out to the defendant under registered lease deed. The defendant wanted to cancel the registered document so as to enter into a fresh lease agreement. Therefore, under oral agreement, the defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and to vacate the property as and when demanded by the lessor. But he committed default for the period from April, 2006 to October, 2006 and in spite of demand, the amount was not paid. The defendant opposed the suit. He insisted that the registered lease deed dated 29.10.2004 governs the transaction and that he is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- towards rent per month. But at the request of the plaintiff, he gave cheques every month for Rs.3,000/-. He denied the default. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, and the admission of the defendant that from January, 2005 till March, 2006, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of cheques, recorded a finding that Ex.B.1 registered lease deed was given a goby and it was not acted upon. The trial Court also observed that the defendant as D.W.1 admitted paying rent of Rs.3,000/- by way of cheques as per the oral terms after execution of Ex.B.1. The appellate Court again reconsidered the evidence and affirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. The counsel for petitioner contends that the plea of oral lease was not proved by the plaintiff and in the face of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Courts below ought not to have allowed the oral evidence. He also submits that when the plaintiff came forward with a specific plea of subsequent oral lease pursuant to which an amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid, the burden squarely lies on him alone as per Sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, but he failed to discharge the burden. It is well settled that the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy of appeal. Ordinarily, in exercise of its power under Article 227, the High Court would not appreciate or re- consider the evidence. Every order passed by the Court subordinate to High Court cannot be interfered with merely because there is some mistake or other view could also be possible on appreciation of the same facts. The plea of the counsel that Section 92 of the Evidence Act bars the admission of oral evidence and the transaction was covered by a registered document has been considered by the appellate Court which relied on the provisos to Section 92 admits oral evidence of any matter of which a document is silent. The plea that Ex.B.1 registered lease deed alone governs the lease transaction is without any force because the defendant himself made admission in his cross-examination that he is paying an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards rent. If the defendant was very much supported by Ex.B.1, there was no necessity for him to pay Rs.3,000/-. His explanation that the plaintiff requested to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- over and above the agreed rent to meet plaintiff’s medial expenses is too feeble an argument to be accepted. This Court has perused the Judgments of the Court below, which have considered the entire material on record and recorded findings in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of fact did not warrant any interference in this civil revision petition. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.07.2011 Pln