JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter `the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated 13-11-2018 in appeal No.124/2018 (03/2004) passed by additional District Judge Dudu, District Jaipur, whereby and whereunder dismissing his appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5-1-2004 in Suit No.34/1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dudu, District Jaipur whereby and whereunder the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter `the plaintiff') has been held entitled to receive Rs.13,000/- with 6% p.a. interest from the date of filing suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for defendant and perused impugned judgments and decrees.

3. Facts of the case are that plaintiff Nandlal (since deceased) purchased agricultural land measuring 11 bigha 1 biswa of Khasra No.6707 for a consideration of Rs.1,53,000/- from one Narayan on 7-7-1993 and Rs.1 lac was paid on 8-7-1993, of which transaction mediators were Ram Lal from the side of Narayan and Hanuman (defendant) from the side of plaintiff. Remaining amount Rs.53,000/- was paid to defendant for payment of the same to seller Narayan and on 10-6-1996 mutation of the agricultural land was attested in favour of plaintiff. However, the defendant Hanuman out of Rs.53,000/- paid only Rs.40,000/- to seller Narayan and promised to pay Rs.13000/- after eight days. But he did not pay the same amount Rs.13000/- and ultimately on 11-1-1997 denied to repay the same. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a registered notice on 13-1-1997 and thereafter filed suit before the trial court. The defendant filed written statement and denied contents of the plaint.

4. The trial court on basis of pleadings of parties framed four issues. Plaintiff examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. Defendant also examined three witnesses, but did not produce any documentary evidence. Considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and vide judgment and decree dated 5-1-2004 concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs.13,000/-with 6% p.a. interest from the defendant. appeal filed thereagainst by the defendant also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 13-11-2018. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for defendant and perused the material available on record as also the written submissions filed by counsel for the petitioner-defendant.

6. The impugned decree is for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,000/-, which has been affirmed by the first appellate court. In view of specific bar by virtue of Section 102 CPC, money decree having less than Rs.25,000/- is not assailable by way of second appeal. However, to assail the money decree, the petitioner-defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 CPC by way of filing instant revision petition. The trial court has placed reliance on oral statements made by plaintiff and his witnesses as also considered documents produced by plaintiff. arguments of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that fundamental document of sale deed and two material witnesses Narayan and Ram Lal were not produced, hence, trial court should not have passed money decree, cannot be appreciated at the stage of revision. Within the scope of Section 115 CPC, this court can examine material illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgments. Fact findings recorded by two courts below are not usually required to be interfered with within the scope of Section 115 CPC. When the trial court has found plaintiff's evidence sufficient to pass money decree for recovery of Rs.13,000/-, which has been affirmed by the first appellate court, this court is not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence to assess whether evidence is sufficient or not to pass money decree. Even if, some better evidence could have been produced on record, the evidence already produced on record may not be held to be