THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1470, 1999, 2000, 2001 & 2002 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.Nos.3, 72, 73, 77 and 79 of 2001 against the respondent, in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for recovery of amounts, on the strength of the respective promissory notes. The respondent opposed the suits. He admitted that he borrowed the amount under the promissory notes. However, he stated that he has discharged the amount covered by them. Through common judgment dated 29-04-2002, the trial Court decreed all the suits. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.Nos.20 to 24 of 2004, in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Through common judgment dated 04-11-2004, the lower Appellate Court has set aside the decrees in all the suits, except the one, in O.S.No.73 of 2001. The decree in that suit was sustained for a sum of Rs.6,800/-, with interest at 6%. These revisions are filed against the decrees passed by the lower Appellate Court. Heard Sri D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The revisions arise out of money suits. Normally, Second Appeals were to have been filed. Since the value of each decree is less than Rs.25,000/-, second appeals are prohibited under Section 102 of the C.P.C. Therefore, revisions are filed. It is well-settled principle of law that, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. Even where second appeals were to have been filed, the scope of interference is very limited. It is only when substantial questions of law exist, that a second appeal can be entertained. In the instant case, common evidence was recorded in all the suits. The petitioner deposed as PW-1. Through him, it was elicited by the respondent that the amounts, covered by various promissory notes, that are the subject-matter of the suits; were cleared. The relevant entries in the account books were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-4. The petitioner did not dispute the genuinity of those entries, which, in fact, were made by himself, and his other employees. May be, out of the cordial relationship between himself and the petitioner, the respondent did not insist on the return of the promissory notes. In all sincerity, he admitted the execution of the same. Further, the respondent maintained chit pass books and pocket diary. Whenever he made payments, he took the endorsements of the petitioner and his Manager/Assistant; in them. The entries were so perfect, that not only the amount, but also the account towards which it was remitted, were mentioned. The lower Appellate Court made a specific reference to these admissions, and held that there was no basis for filing of the suits. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09-09-2009. KO