S. Acharya, J.
1. This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the unsuccessful defendant.
2. The plaintiff is a medical practitioner. His suit is for realisation of Rs. 96/- as balance medical attendance dues on the defendant, Rs. 36/- as damages for non-payment of the afroesaid amount, and for interest on the said amounts and costs of the suit.
3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that he had paid in full the plaintiffs dues and obtained receipts from him to that effect.
4. The trial Court, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, has decreed the plaintiff's aforesaid claim only in respect of Rs. 96/- and directed payment of the same with future interest, proportionate costs of the suit and pleader's fees as specifically mentioned in the judgment.
5. Mr. Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the fact that the defendant adduced documentary proof of payment of the medical fees by him to the plaintiff, the court below was not justified in discarding the said evidence merely on an assessment of the same with the oral evidence on record. He also urged that the assessment of the evidence on record by the court below was not done in a proper manner.
6. In the impugned judgment, the court has discussed and considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and has given cogent and convincing reason for not accepting the documentary evidence of payment as proof of actual payment of the said amount. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of he Act this court can examine if there was miscarriage of justice in deciding the matter; whether the decision was given according to law, and/or whether the unsuccessful party had a proper trial according to law. But this court should not interfere merely because it finds that on the evidence on record it is possible to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the court below. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 1344 Malini Naicker v. Seth Manghraj) have accepted with approval the observations of Beaumont C. J. on this question in the decision reported in AIR 1938 Bom 223 (Bell and Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemrai) which are as follows:--
'The object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the court may interfere in revision, as does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt any exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had e proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere But, in my opinion, the Court ought net to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at.'
The same observations have been accepted as the most accurate exposition of the meaning of Section 25 of the Act by another Bench of the Supreme Court which decided the case reported in AIR 1963 SC 698 (Hari Shankar v. Rao Giridhari Lal Chowdhury).
So in a matter of this nature even if on my own appreciation of the evidence on record I feel that another conclusion can possibly be arrived at it would be improper on my part to superimpose my findings of fact on the findings already arriv-at by the court below.
7. Apart from that consideration, in this case I find that the court below has decreed the plaintiffs suit on a reasonable approach to and assessment of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. No other legitimate ground for interference in a matter of this nature as stated above could be made out to assail the findings and conclusion of the court below.
8. On the above considerations I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding and conclusion of the court below. There is, therefore, no merit in this Revision, and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.