( 1 ) THIS Revision under S. 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act 1964 arises from the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1993 passed by the Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 10904/91 whereby plaintiff's suit for recovery of money was decreed in part. The plaintiff claims for a sum of Rs. 9,999/- with interest and cost.

( 2 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 1 who is respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 7,316/- with proportionate cost and with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case in the nutshell is that plaintiff who is revisionist in the case (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has been the dealer in Television sets and the 1st defendant had approached the plaintiff to purchase Black and White T. V. set on credit basis on the undertaking given by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 along with Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hoskote and Byrappa, Accountant, Town Municipal Council, Hoskote, and on the surety of defendants-2 and 3 Crompton Creaves T. V. set was sold to the last defendant on 6-2-1990 on credit and the 1st defendant had assured and made plaintiff to believe that he would pay the value of T. V. set in 36 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 236/- per month and in case of default pernalty of Rs. 100/- for each defaulting month.

( 4 ) FIRST defendant has denied that he had approached the plaintiff to purchase T. V. set on credit basis and he had agreed to pay the value of the T. V. in 36 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 236/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- for every default in payment of instalments. The plaintiff's case is that 1st defendant had paid only five instalments and remaining he did not pay in spite of repeated demands. So, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 9,999. 00 though the total amount due on the date of suit was Rs. 10,460. 00.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 contested the suit. While defendants-2, 4 and 5 appeared in person and defendant No. 3 remained absent. Defendant No. 1 denied the plaintiff's case. He has pleaded and stated that he did not approach the plaintiff for supply of black and white television and had never agreed to pay the price in 36 instalments at the rate of Rs. 236/ -. He has not executed any delivery note to pay penalty of Rs. 100/- for every default in paying the instalments. That the defendant No. 4 had offered Black and White T. V. for Rs. 3,500/- payable in monthly instalments and the fourth defendant had taken his signature on the blank papers assuring to deliver T. V. set after payment of half of the amount and that though deductions were made from his salary but no T. V. set was supplied to him either by the plaintiff or by the 4th defendant. Defendant No. 1 denied his liability to pay the amount and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

( 6 ) THE trial Court after examining and appreciating the evidence on record held that the plaintiff has proved that Television set was sold to the first defendant on credit basis and that the plaintiff has proved that the 1st defendant had agreed to pay 36 instalments at the rate of Rs. 236/- per month. The trial Court decreed the suit for the sum mentioned above.

( 7 ) WITH reference to issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the trial Court had recorded the findings that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the default in payment of each instalment. It has also held that defendants-2 and 3 were sureties. It further found that the undertaking given by defendants 4 and 5 is unauthorised and could not be enforced. In result, the trial Court decreed the suit against the 1st defendant for Rs. 7316/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, and dismissed the suit against defendants-2 to 5.

( 8 ) HAVING been aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff has come up in revision and the only ground that has been rai