HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3401 OF 2010 Between: Mogapati Bhaskara Raju, S/o Chakradhara Raju ..... PETITIONER AND Penumudi Venkateswara Rao S/o Panduranga Rao .....RESPONDENT ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by judgment dated 28.3.2008 passed in A.S.No. 56 of 2006 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, confirming the orders dated 21.4.2006 passed in O.S.No. 371 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District. Petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 371 of 2004. O.S. was filed by the respondent- plaintiff herein for recovery of Rs. 16,370/- including registered notice expenses and interest at 12% per annum on a pro-note dated 1.9.2001 executed by the petitioner-defendant herein in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The Court below decreed the suit for Rs. 16,370/- with costs holding that the suit pro-note is true and the same is binding on the petitioner-defendant herein. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-defendant filed an appeal viz., A.S.No. 56 of 2006 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the court below in O.S.No. 371 of 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and weigh of evidence and the appellate Court confirmed the same without appreciating the evidence on record. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is evident that the petitioner-defendant himself admitted in his cross- examination that he borrowed Rs. 12,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff on the date of suit promissory note, and he also admitted that the signatures contained in the suit promissory note of Ex. A1 pertaining to him before the lower court. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly confirmed the order of the Court below. Hence, This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 24.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.