Short Note : The case of the non-applicant was that on 16-8-1972 the applicant had purchased 50 bags of cement on credit valued at Rs. 629.50 paise. As the applicant failed to pay the price of the cement inspite of the demand, the suit was filed for Rs. 830 inclusive of interest and notice charges. The applicant denied that he purchased 50 bags of cement from the non-applicant on credit. The applicant, however, admitted that he had purchased 50 bags of cement from non-applicant on 16-8-1972 but he had paid the price in advance. The applicant, therefore, denied his liability to pay the principal amount as well as interest and notice charges as claimed in the plaint. The trial Court, however, held that the applicant had taken 50 bags of cement on credit and that he failed to pay its price. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit for the sum of Rs. 830 inclusive of interest amounting to Rs. 200 and notice charges Rs. 10 was decreed. The applicant has, therefore, come to this Court in revision. Held : I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The fact that the applicant did receive 50 bags of cement valued at Rs. 629.50 on 16-8-1972 vide Bill No. 776 is not disputed. The case of the applicant was that he had made payment of this bill in advance. This fact has been disbelieved by the trial Court and rightly so. The bill Ex.P-2 merely indicates that it is a credit-bill. The amount of this bill was debited in the name of the applicant in the ledger of the non-applicant. It is not disputed that the non-applicant keeps regular books of account during the course of his business. There is no entry in the account-book of the non-applicant that the amount of the said bill was paid by the applicant. As already stated earlier the case of the applicant in his written statement was that he used to make payment in advance and that he did not receive any goods from the non-applicant without making the payment; but at the stage of evidence, the applicant contrary to his pleadings came forward with a case that he had made the payment of the bill in question to Rajmal Jain who was serving with the non-applicant. In support of this case, the applicant examined Raghuvir Singh who was also a servant of the non-applicant. The evidence of this witness is quite strange. He has deposed that he had given the receipt Ex.D-7 to the applicant for the sum of Rs. 629.50. In this receipt, the witness has written that the applicant had paid the sum of Rs. 629.50 to Rajmal Jain in his presence. The receipt Ex.D-7 is dated 26-12-1972. It is thus clear that according to the said receipt, the amount of the bill dated 16-8-1972 was paid on 26-12-1972. The receipt Ex.D-7 appears to be a bogus document and probably it was obtained by the applicant from Raghvir Singh who is no more in the service of the non-applicant. The trial Court, therefore rightly disbelieved the applicant's plea of payment. The Court below after appreciating the evidence on record has come to a finding of fact that the applicant has failed to make the payment of the bill with respect to the supply of 50 bags of cement to him. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court in revision. Revision dismissed.