THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5594 of 2007 Date of Order: 20-12-2010 Between: 1. Basavani Peda Venkata Reddy and another ..Petitioners and Alapati Kasi Visweshwara Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 5594/2007 Oral order: This revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the judgment and decree dt. 16-6-2006 passed in AS No.86/2002 on the file of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereunder learned Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli dt. 24-7-2001 dismissing OS No.59/1996 filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,547 and decreed the suit, OS No.59/1996. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,547/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum alleging that the appellants-defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.16,000/- from him and executed a promissory note on 13-9-1995 agreeing to pay the same with interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated damands, the appellants/defendants did not repay the amount due under pronote. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement contending that defendant No.1 is a farm servant of one Gavara Naga Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff for the last several years. Due to dispute between the first defendant and G.N.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, at the time of leaving the employment of the first defendant, Vijaya Bhaskar Rao obtained thumb impressions of the first defendant on blank papers for passing receipts towards acknowledgment of wages. The said Bhaskar Rao handed over the blank papers. Taking advantage of illiteracy of the first defendant, the plaintiff by forging the signature of the second defendant filed the present suit. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim? 2. Whether the suit pronote is created one or genuine? 3. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration? 4. To what relief? Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.C-1 to C-10 were marked. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the evidence of P.W.3, who is one of the attestors to Ex.A-1- promissory note and who stated that after obtaining thumb impressions of the defendants on the promissory note, money was handed over to them, is inconsistent with his further evidence with regard to passing of the consideration. The defendants, who examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, in their evidence categorically stated that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note in his favour. The evidence of D.W.3, who is Finger Print Expert coupled with Ex.C-10-report of D.W.3 would show that the alleged thumb impression of D- 1 on Ex.A-1 is not identical with the specimen thumb impressions, and while holding that Ex.A-1 is not proved dismissed the suit. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court after re-appreciating the evidence made available on record was of the view that the execution of Ex.A-1-suit pronote and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 to the defendants has been established by the plaintiff through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and though P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to lengthy cross- examination by the defendants, nothing has been elicited in their favour. In his evidence, D.W.1 cannot say whether the first thumb impression showed to him in the suit pronote belongs to him or not and his wife-D.W.2 never singed on the suit pronote and thumb impression of his wife on Ex.A-1 is forged one and the evidence of D.W.3 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. D.W.3 deposed that when the disputed thumb impression of B. Lakshmikantham-D-2 on Ex.A-1 was compared with the thumb marks, they are not identical. When execution of pronote and passing of consideration has been proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and defendants failed to discharge their burden that Vijaya Bhaskar handed over blank papers containing thumb marks, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. Admittedly, the value of the suit under appeal is less than Rs.25,000/-. In LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI V. PRATAPSING MOHAN SINGH PARADESHI[1], the Supreme Court held that the legislature has, in its wisdom, not provided second appeal or revision to the High Court. The object is to give finality to the decision of the appellate authority. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It is well settled that the High Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which the appellate court can do. In SADHANA LODH V. NATIONAL INUSRANCE COMPANY LTD.,[2] the Supreme Court held that if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Aticle 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the high Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. Since the finding so recorded by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff clinchingly established his case by examining P.Ws.1 to 3 do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, the expert evidence is not conclusive and out weigh direct evidence; hence no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the lower appellate court warranting correction by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.20-12-2010 kmr [1] (1995) 6 SCC 576 [2] (2003) 3 SCC 524