Dave, J.—This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the judgment of the District Judge, Alwar, upholding the decree of the Munsif, Rajgarh, dated the 19th August 1949, dismissing the plaintiffs suit, 2. The applicants claim was that on the 14th of January 1948 he had sold to the defendant respondent five cattle for Rs. 338/-, that he had received only Rs.5/-as earnest money and he was, therefore, entitled to recover the remaining amount of Rs. 333/-together with Rs. 30/- for interest thereupon. The defendant denied the whole transaction and the plaintiff was, therefore, called upon to prove if there was any transaction of sale. Both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding that there was no such transaction. 3. The applicants learned advocate contends that in the court of the District Judge one of the grounds raised by the plaintiff was that from the evidence of the defendants own witnesses his case was proved but the learned District Judge did not pay any attention to the defendants evidence and dismissed the appeal simply after reading the statements of the plaintiffs witnesses. It is also argued that the evidence of plaintiffs witnesses has been disbelieved wrongly. 4. It appears from the judgments of both the courts that the plaintiff had examined himself and two more witnesses in support of his claim. One of them was his brother and was, therefore, not considered as a disinterested witness. The other witness namely Jagansingh was also not relied upon. The applicants advocate now wants this court to rely upon these witnesses. In A.I.R. 1950 P.C. 25 their Lordships of the Privy Council were pleased to observe that where the evidence of a certain witness is disbelieved by the courts below the High Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction if it relics on the same evidence. This remark was made in a case in which a Judge of the Patna High Court had changed the finding of fact in second appeal. The present case does not come even on second appeal but on a revision petition and these remarks would apply all the more strongly to it. 5. The applicants advocate has led this court into the statements of the defendants witnesses to show that they have supported the plaintiffs claim and that the District Judge had committed an error in not even looking into them. 5. The applicants advocate has led this court into the statements of the defendants witnesses to show that they have supported the plaintiffs claim and that the District Judge had committed an error in not even looking into them. It is true that the learned District Judge has not discussed the evidence of the defendants witnesses but this does not affect his decision, because none of the defendants witness has deposed that there was any transaction of sale in their presence. 6. Thus there is no ground for accepting the revision petition and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.