JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This revisional application arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 675/- as principal and interest due on the basis of a hand-note. 2. The Plaintiff's case was that late Nabin Mangal, the father of the Defendant incurred a loan of Rs. 500/- from him on 21-9-1969 and executed the suit hand-note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. He died subsequently leaving behind him the Defendant as his sole heir. The Defendant having been benefited by the loan, is bound to repay the same. Despite repeated demands, no payment was made towards the loan. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit on 18-9-1972 for recovery of Rs. 500/- as principal and Rs. 175/- as interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the period from 21-9-1969 till 21-8-1972. 3. The defence contention was that the suit hand-note is a forged and fabricated document. It was alleged that Nabin Mangal the father of the Defendant had died long before 21-9-1969, that is, the date of the suit hand-note. 4. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and the learned Munsif, on a consideration of the same, held that the Plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus of proving execution of the hand-note and the passing of consideration thereunder. He also held, relying on the entries made in the death register and the Chaukidar's Hatchitha register, that Nabin Mangal died on 3-5-1969, that is, long before the execution of the suit hand-note. Accordingly, he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit with costs to the Defendant. 5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, on a reappraisal, of the evidence both oral and documentary came to hold that the entries in the death register and the Chaukidar's Hatchitha register regarding the death of Nabin Mangal were interpolated and that the hand-note in suit is genuine and for consideration. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and decreed the Plaintiff's limit with costs and pendetelite and future interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. Findings of the appellate Court are assailed in this Civil Revision as being against the weight of evidence on the record. 6. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and decreed the Plaintiff's limit with costs and pendetelite and future interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. Findings of the appellate Court are assailed in this Civil Revision as being against the weight of evidence on the record. 6. There cannot be any doubt that the jurisdiction and power of interference of the High Court in a Civil Revision u/s 115, CPC is not only very limited, but the same is also restricted. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Jaffar Shaik Mahmood and Others Vs. Mohd. Pasha Hakkani Saheb and Others. the High Court has power to see whether there is any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below or whether there is any such manifest error of procedure committed by the said Court which has affected the ultimate decision, resulting in gross injustice. The High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence in exercise of its revisional power and differ from the findings of fact. If a subordinate Court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute, it may decide it rightly or wrongly. Whether the question be one of law or fact, that would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. It is only when the error of law or fact has relation to the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court to try the dispute that the provisions of Section 115, CPC would be attracted. 7. In the present case, the appellate Court held that the entries dated 3-5-1969 made in the death register (Ext. 1) and the Chaukidar's Hatchitha register (Ext.3) were interpolated. It took into consideration certain suspicious features in the entries in arriving at the conclusion that they were interpolated. On a careful consideration of the oral evidence led by both the parties, it found that the hand-note was duly executed by Nabin Mangal and that consideration was duly received by him. It relied mainly of on the evidence of the Plaintiff and his witness P.W. 3 who claimed to have witnessed the transaction of loan. In its opinion, P.W. 3 was a disinterested witness and his evidence was reliable. 8. A mere glance at the entry dated 3-5-1969 in the Chaukidar's Hatchitha register would convince anybody that it has been subsequently interpolated. In its opinion, P.W. 3 was a disinterested witness and his evidence was reliable. 8. A mere glance at the entry dated 3-5-1969 in the Chaukidar's Hatchitha register would convince anybody that it has been subsequently interpolated. In the written statement the Defendant did not mention the date of death of his father. The Chaukidar who made the entry in the register was not examined at the trial. In view of the suspicious features surrounding the entry about the date of death of Nabin Mangal, the appellate Court was justified in discarding the same. The finding of the appellate Court about the genuineness of the hand-note is based on appreciation of evidence. I see no cogent ground to interfere with the same. 9. The Civil Revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed