1 S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.159/2004. (LRs of Surendra Singh v. Marvar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Pali-Marvar) Date of Order: :: :24-01-2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.Sangeet Lodha, for Petitioner. Mr.B.R.Chaudhary, for non-petitioner. The plaintiff is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 24th January, 2004, by which the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of limitation and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for principal Rs.4,000/- and interest thereon. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of total Rs.11,700/- against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant applied for loan by submitting application on 23rd December, 1985. Upon which, the loan of Rs.5,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff-bank and defendant executed loan agreement on 26th December, 1985 and agreed that he will re-pay the amount in 60 monthly instalments along with interest thereon. The defendant was paid loan amount by cheque on 26th December, 1985. The defendant also executed revival letters on 28th November, 1988 and 30th August, 1991. The revival letters were not believed by the trial Court and, therefore, the suit was dismissed as barred bytime. The 2 Appellate Court relied upon the revival letters and reversed the trial Court's finding on this issue and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the defendant – petitioner never took loan, nor he signed the revival letters. It is submitted that the trial Court very critically analysed the revival letters as well as the evidence produced by the parties and, thereafter, held that the plaintiff- Bank failed to prove the revival letters. It is also submitted that the defendant never took the loan. After going through the reasons given by the First Appellate Court, as well as in view of the defence taken by the defendant, it appears that the two courts-below concurrently held that the defendant took loan by submitting application and he signed the documents. Even if there is some over-writing in the revival letters, then also, that over-writing is of not of such nature that can make the documents void in any manner. However, the First appellate Court relied upon the documents signed by the defendant and, therefore, the finding of fact cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. scd 3