THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4769 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.14 of 1986 in the Court of District Munsif, Asifabad, against the respondent, for recovery of Rs.5,500/-, with interest, on the basis of a promissory note, dated 05.05.1985. The trial Court decreed the suit through, its judgment, dated 12.12.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.4 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad. Later on, it was transferred to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad, and renumbered as A.S.No.5 of 2004. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal through judgment, dated 30.04.2004. Hence, this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court decreed the suit, on proper and correct appreciation of evidence, and there was no justification for the lower Appellate Court in reversing the same. He contends that the promissory note- Ex.A.1 was proved not only through the evidence of the scribe and witnesses, but also through the opinion of an expert. Though the respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The suit was filed for recovery of a small amount of Rs.5,500/-. However, the litigation, in relation thereto, is pending for the past 24 years. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 4 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.5. The respondent, on the other hand, adduced evidence as DWs.1 to 4. The opinion received from the expert is in the form of Exs.C.1 to C.7. The trial Court decreed the suit, on finding that Ex.A1 is proved. The lower Appellate Court has undertaken a close and critical examination of the findings recorded by the trial Court. It was found that the trial Court recorded findings, only on the basis of the statements made in the chief-examination of various witnesses. The lower Appellate Court clearly pointed out that, the information, that is elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the petitioner herein, clearly disproves his claim. A specific reference was made to the information that is extracted from PWs.2 and 3 and the same was contrasted with the evidence of PW.1. Being a final Court on facts, the lower Appellate Court has examined the matter, in detail, and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any factual, or legal infirmity in the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:07.08.2009. GJ