LODHA, J —The defendant Nanuram has filed this Revision application from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Merta dated 7-4-1966 in a money suit.

2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiffs-non-petitioners sold their standing crop in the field situate in village Dhanni to the defendant petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in cash, one maund of Bajri and one cartload of Pala. Since the defendant did not pay the amount, nor gave the stipulated Bajri and Pala, the plaintiffs filed this suit in the court of the Munsiff, Didwana for recovery of Rs. 500/- in cash and Rs. 253/14/6 as interest thereon, Rs. 32/- as cost of the stipulated Pala, Rs. 16/- as cost of one maund of Bajra and Rs. 10/- on account of Bighori= Total Rs. 811-14-6. The defendants contended that this transaction took place not in Sambat 2017, as alleged by the plaintiffs, but in Smt. 2016, and thus a material alteration in the Smt. year had been made by the plaintiffs in the suit document (Ex.1) in order to bring the suit within limitation. It was further pleaded that the defendant had made full payment and had also delivered the stipulated Bajri and Pala and nothing was due, and this suit had been brought on account of the strained relations between the parties.

3. After recording the evidence of the parties,, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit document had been executed in Smt. 2016 and that Smt. year had been changed from 2016 to 2017, and further that the defendant had made full payment, and nothing was due. The plaintiffs filed an appeal from the judgment and decree of the trial court which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Merta, who decreed the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 811.90 and further awarded pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 4% per annum.

4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the defendant has filed this revision.

5. Three points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance, it has been contended that the suit transactions took place in Smt. 2016 and the document (Ex. 1) was also executed on Asoj Badi 1, Smt. 2016, but had been subsequently interpolated and the Smt. year had been changed from 2016 to 2017. He has also argued that the payment due on the basis of this document had been made in full and so also the stipulated Bajri and Pala had been given to the plaintiffs. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the evidence of the court witness—Ishwar Das and the statement of D.W. 1 Nanuram (defendant) and also the endorsement made on the reverse of Ex. A/1—a promissory note dated 23-3 62. He has argued that even according to the plaintiff Prakash Chands own admission, the advances made by the plaintiffs to the defendant subsequent to the suit document have been fully paid up, and the endorsement made on the reverse of the promissory note (Ex. A/1) goes to show that all the outstandings against the defendant had been discharged when the payment due on the promissory note was made. These contentions have been examined by the first appellate court at some length, and after discussing the oral and the documentary evidence produced by the parties, the lower appellate court has come to the conclusion that there has been no interpolation in the Sambat year in Ex.1 nor the repayment is proved to have been made. It is not denied that there is evidence on the record in support of the finding of the lower appellate court in this respect. All that is argued is that the view of the evidence taken by the lower courts is erroneous and is based on mis-appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the reasons given by the trial court for dismissing the suit are weighty and the lower appellate court has not been able to meet them. Suffice it to say that sitting as a court of revision, it is not open to me to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute my view of the evi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document