THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1471 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.310 of 1997 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,440/-, covered by four promissory notes, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The respondent denied the transactions under the said promissory notes. Through its judgment, dated 28-06-2000, the trial Court decreed the suit, in part, as regards the amounts covered by Exs.A-3 and A-4, to an extent of Rs.11,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum, and dismissed the suit for the balance of the amount, covered by Exs.A-1 and A-2. The respondent filed A.S.No.43 of 2000 in the Court of V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. The appeal was allowed on 26-12-2003, and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the lower Appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that the person through whom the suit was filed, is not a partner. Learned counsel contends that, there was neither a plea to that effect, nor any issue, and in the evidence, it was clearly established that Sri K.S. Prakash is very much a partner. He submits that no suggestion to the contrary was made, and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside on that ground. Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the revision, if at all, was to be filed under Section 115 C.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the maintainability of the suit was very much an issue, and though the trial Court did not consider the same, at length, the lower Appellate Court examined that aspect, in depth, and reversed the decree. He places reliance upon the provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel contends that the suit was liable to be dismissed, on account of the fact that the petitioner failed to prove that he maintained ledgers, as required under that Act. The objection that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to the maintainability of the revision; needs to be dealt with, first. The suit was filed for recovery of money, and but for the fact that the value of the decree was less than Rs.25,000/-, a second appeal ought to have been filed against the judgment and decree, passed by the lower appellate Court. Since a second appeal is barred, revision ought to have been presented under Section 115 C.P.C. In Gajula Narasaiah v. Basidhar Rao[1], this Court held that it is a revision, under Section 115 C.P.C., that needs to be filed in the matters of this nature. Hardly any qualitative difference exists, between the jurisdiction of this Court, in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the one hand, and Section 115 C.P., on the other hand. Inasmuch as a higher amount of Court Fee is to be paid for revision under Article 227, it can safely be converted into the one, under Section 115 C.P.C. Coming to the merits of the matter, the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of two promissory notes, for a sum of Rs.11,600/-. The only ground on which the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court was, that the petitioner failed to prove that it was represented through a partner. Inference was drawn from Exs.A-7 and A-8. In the written-statement filed by him, the respondent did not plead that Prakash, who represented the petitioner, is not a partner. The emphasis was mostly about the registration of the firm. The petitioner filed a certificate of registration. The trial Court also did not frame an issue, touching on the capacity of Prakash. All the same, in his introductory part of the chief-examination, he stated that he is a partner of the petitioner. In the cross-examination made by the respondent, PW-1 stuck to the same stand. Not even a suggestion to the contrary was made. Therefore, the ground on which the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that the petitioner failed to prove that it maintained a ledger, as required under the Act, and in that view of the matter, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Here again, the contention cannot be accepted, for the reason that the plea was not raised before the trial Court. The necessity for the trial Court to frame an issue, or for the petitioner to lead evidence, in that regard, would have arisen, had the petitioner raised the specific plea. Further, failure to maintain ledger would be led to denial of interest, but not to the dismissal of the suit. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P is allowed, and the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.43 of 2000 is set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court is upheld, except to the extent it awarded costs. In other words, the decree passed by the trial Court shall be without costs. The respondent is granted the facility of paying the decretal amount, in installments, of Rs.3,000/- per month, payable on or before 10th of every month, commencing from October, 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-08-2009. KO [1] 2007(2) ALT 677