ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Revision is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 2/90 in E.P. No. 13/88 in O.S.No. 200/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bobbili.
2. The facts in brief are, the respondent herein/Judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21 Rule 2(2) C.P.C. praying to issue notice to the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder calling upon him as to why full satisfaction in E.P.No. 13/88 should not be recorded as certified in view of the full satisfaction receipt passed by the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder on 1-1-1990 in his favour after receiving Rs.25,000/- from him in full satisfaction of the E.P. amount of Rs.30,025/-. The Court below had recorded the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/judgment-debtor i.e., respondent in the present Revision and P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked and on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 recorded. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Court below had allowed the application and had recorded the full satisfaction of the decree. The Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, aggrieved by the said order had filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Sri R. Chakravarthi, representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder had made elaborate submissions and had taken me through the evidence recorded by the Court below and had contended that the Court below should not have believed the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, the alleged attestors of Ex.A-1 and there are several contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence. Further, the learned Counsel had contended that the scribe was not examined by the Opposite Party and in fact the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder had chosen to examine the scribe R.W.2 and in view of the non-examination of the scribe by the Opposite Party, the Court below should have disbelieved his version and should have dismissed the application. The learned Counsel also had relied upon the decision of this Court in V. Satyawathi v. P. Venkataratnam, 1988 (1) ALT 915 = 1988 (1) L.S. 315 (A.P.) and had contended that non-examination of the scribe in such a case is fatal and on this ground the Court below should have disallowed the application.
4. Sri Bhaskar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/judgment-debtor had strenuously contended that the evidence of P.W.1 supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and also Ex.A-1, the documentary evidence clearly go to show that in fact the payment was made by the Judgment-debtor and for the reasons best known, the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder is now disputing the same and creating complications. The learned Counsel had also contended that the procedure as contemplated by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code had been followed and full satisfaction had been recorded in accordance with law. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the relevant portions of the order wherein a detailed discussion is available about the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. In fact, the Court below on appreciation of the evidence alone had believed Ex.A-1 and the revisional Court in exercise of the powers under Section 115 C.P.C. need not reappreciate the evidence and need not come to a different conclusion as far as appreciation of the evidence is concerned.
5. After hearing the elaborate submissions of both Counsel, I am of the opinion that the respondent/judgment-debtor was able to establish by adducing necessary evidence i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 and also Ex.A-1, and he was able to prove the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 and the Court below after following the procedure had duly recorded the full satisfaction. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the mere non-examination of the scribe by the respondent/judgment-debtor and the mere fact that the scribe of Ex.A-1 was examined as R.W.2 by the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder, may not in any way improve the case of the Revision Petitioner/Decree-holder. The Court below had passed an elaborate order after appreciating the evidence in detail and this Court, as a revisional Court, need not interfere with such appreciation of evidence.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, with costs.