ORDER This is a civil revision petition filed under Sections 115 and 151, Civil P. C. to revise the judgment of the Munsiff, Manipur at Imphal in S. C. C. 22 of 1962 dated 12-7-1965 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents 1, 2 and 3 for recovery of two pieces of timber cut and removed by the respondents or their value of Rs. 50. 2. The petitioner alleged in the plaint that on 9-7-1961 the respondents entered into his land, that they wrongfully cut and carried away 2 pieces of timber existing thereon within the Assam Rifles Colony and in the possession of the petitioner, that the petitioner at once prosecuted the respondents under Section 379, I. P. C. in Criminal Case 12 of 1962 on the file of the Magistrate, Imphal West, that they were discharged on 22-5-1962 by the court with a direction to the petitioner that he should seek relief in a civil Court and that, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to recover the two pieces of timber or a sum of Rs. 50 towards the value of the 2 pieces in the alternative. 3. The respondents 1 to 8 filed a joint written statement alleging that the petitioner-plaintiff was never in possession of the whole area of the Colony, that there are many members who have been in possession of their shares of the land in the Colony and that the petitioner had been possessing his specific share of two paris of land only. The respondents 1 to 8 filed a joint written statement alleging that the petitioner-plaintiff was never in possession of the whole area of the Colony, that there are many members who have been in possession of their shares of the land in the Colony and that the petitioner had been possessing his specific share of two paris of land only. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 further stated in their written statement that they were also occupying lands in the Colony, that there were no big trees existing on the petitioners land, that the existing Hindi Higher Secondary School in Kanglatongbi was started to be constructed by public enterprise and contribution in cash and kind in June, 1961, that for the sake of convenience the entire contributing area was divided into six blocks, that a resolution in a meeting No. 7 dated 28-5-1961 was passed to the effect that each block should contribute two logs of wood for windows and doors of the said School, that accordingly block No. 4 Assam Rifles Colony contributed two logs which were carried to the destination through a bullock-cart, that without any reasonable or probable cause and after a panchayat was held the petitioner filed Criminal Case 12 of 1962 against the respondents but that they were discharged and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner examined one Gagan Bahadur Sunwar as P. W. 1; himself as P. W. 2 and marked Exts. A/1 and A/2. The respondents examined one Mukti Prasad Chhetri as D. W. 1, Dhan Singh Limbu as D. W. 2, and Umanath Chhetri (defendant 3) as D. W. 3 and marked Exts. B/1, B/2 and B/3. 5. The lower court correctly framed the point to be considered, viz., whether the respondents wrongfully cut and carried away the two timber pieces from the land of the petitioner thereby causing damage to him to the extent of Rs. 50. The Munsiff discussed the evidence let in by both parties and held that the claim of the petitioner is not proved and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence the present civil revision petition. 6. The point for determination is whether the interference by this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C. is called for. 7. 50. The Munsiff discussed the evidence let in by both parties and held that the claim of the petitioner is not proved and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence the present civil revision petition. 6. The point for determination is whether the interference by this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C. is called for. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is well as the respondents argued the matter on merits as though this Court sat in appeal against the judgment of the Court below. The Munsiff discussed the evidence let in by the petitioner in Para 5 of his judgment and held therein that there is variance between his pleading and the proof regarding the number of pieces of timber said to have been taken by the respondents and that it was not proved satisfactorily that the timber in question belonged to the petitioner. Then in para 6 of his judgment he stated that the evidence let in by the respondents proves their case as against the case of the petitioner. 8. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that simply because P. W. 2 the petitioner stated in his plaint that the respondents took away two pieces of timber while in his evidence only one was found to have been delivered to the respondents is not a ground for dismissing the suit, if really there is evidence that one piece of timber of P. W. 2 was wrongfully taken away by D. W. 3. But, a scrutiny of the evidence shows that the petitioners case cannot be accepted. According to P. W. 2 in his plaint the respondents entered into his land and cut and removed the timber on 9-7-1961. But, his evidence is otherwise. His evidence is that the Colony was opened in 1952-53, that the Commandant of the Colony ordered its occupants to cut the trees and clear the jungle and keep big timber for construction of their houses, that accordingly they cleared the jungle and stocked some timber including the timber in question, but that the respondents 1 and 2 attempted to carry away three pieces of timber in spite of his protest. He further deposed that he reported the matter to the Ranger of Forest Office, Sekmai, that the Ranger seized the three pieces under exhibit A/1 dated 9-7-1961 that the Ranger kept two pieces with P. W. 2 under Ext. He further deposed that he reported the matter to the Ranger of Forest Office, Sekmai, that the Ranger seized the three pieces under exhibit A/1 dated 9-7-1961 that the Ranger kept two pieces with P. W. 2 under Ext. A/2, that he delivered one piece to D. W. 3, the third respondent, that P. W. 2 demanded D. W. 3 to return the timber, that D. W. 2 did not return it and that, therefore, P. W. 2 is entitled to recover that piece or its value. Both Exts. A/1 and A/2 are dated 9-7-1961. 9. As against the above evidence of P. W. 2 there is the evidence of D. W. 1, who deposed that D. W. 1 had only two "paris" of land in the Assam Rifles Colony in the eastern-most extremity, that there were old trees in that part of the Colony upto 1956, that for the purpose of contribution, the Colony was divided into six blocks in June, 1961, that for each block 2 pieces were contributable for the construction of the Hindi Higher Secondary School, that panchayat was held on the allegation that P. W. 2 cut away five pieces of timber on a land beyond his two paris of land, that, P. W. 2 was fined Rs. 20 by the panchayat and that he was required to make over two pieces in dispute to the School. The evidence of D. W. 3, the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the School is to the same effect. He proved Ext. B/1 which shows that P. W. 1 agreed to deliver 2 pieces. He proved P. W. 1s signature, Ext. B/2 on Ext. B/1. Exhibit B/1 is dated 5-9-1958. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as Ext. B/1 is dated 5-9-1958, it has nothing to do with the two pieces of timber in dispute covered by Ext. A/1 dated 9-7-1961. A reading of the evidence in the light of the pleadings shows that the timber must have been cut on or about 5-9-58 and that when it was being taken for the purpose of the construction of the School on 9-7-1961 the dispute was raised by P. W. 2. So, the documents are connected. P. W. 2 denied his signature on Ext. B/1. The lower Court obtained his signatures for the purpose of comparison. So, the documents are connected. P. W. 2 denied his signature on Ext. B/1. The lower Court obtained his signatures for the purpose of comparison. Even now, if his signatures are compared with Ext. B/2, they appear to be identical. 10. The evidence let in by P. W. 2 is sufficiently rebutted by the respondents. The lower court did not act in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in coming to its conclusions. It is a question of appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties. As such, there are no grounds for interference under Section 115, Civil P. C. 11. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, P. W. 2 appears to have filed the suit on the observation made by the Magistrate in his judgment as per Ext. B/3 that P. W. 2 should have sought redress in a civil court. 12. In the result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs here and in the court below. Petition dismissed.