JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants are the Petitioners in this civil revision against a reversing money decree. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 2.750/- from his father-in-law (Defendant No. 1) and brother-in-law (Defendant No. 2). It is not in dispute now that Plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 4.000/- to the Defendant No. 1 out of which the latter has paid Rs. 1,250/- only. The suit was filed for the balance amount. Case of the Defendants is that Defendant No. 1 spent Rs. 2,000/- in respect of purchase of a piece of land by the Plaintiff Liability to the extent of Rs. 750/- was admitted. 3. Purchase of land by the Plaintiff being admitted, the only question is whether Defendant No. 1 spent Rs. 2,000/- for purchase of the land of the Plaintiff. 4. Claiming that- he himself spent the amount, Plaintiff proved the transfer deed dated 24-2-1973 (Ext. 4) and the entry in the pass-book proving withdrawal of the amount from the bank (Ext. 1) in corroboration. Defendant No. 1 examined d. w. 2, the Revenue Clerk of the Math to prove that be received the amount from Defendant No. 1 and not from the Plaintiff. 5. Trial Court accepted the statement of the Revenue Clerk (d. w. 2) and held that the amount has been paid by Defendant No. 1 on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not pay any amount. Accordingly, a decree was passed for the amount of Rs. 750/-. Appellate Court without discarding the evidence of d. w. 2 relied upon Ext. 4 and held that the consideration a mount mentioned there being less than the amount claimed to have been paid by Defendant No. 1, it does not inspire confidence that Rs. 2,000/- would be necessary for the purpose of the land in question. Appellate Court relied upon Ext. 1 the withdrawal of the amount from bank and the fact of litigation between the parties to accept the Plaintiff's case. 6. Normally, in civil revision I would not have interfered with the finding of fact of the appellate Court howsoever erroneous it might be in view of the principle laid down in Hari Shankar (1) Ors. v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury 1962 S.C.D. 579 approving the observations of Beaumont. C.J. of Bombay High Court in Bell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Hemraj. v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury 1962 S.C.D. 579 approving the observations of Beaumont. C.J. of Bombay High Court in Bell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Hemraj. This principle was followed in this Court in Lokanath Maharana Vs. Dr. A.B. Mohanty considering both the decisions in a recent decision of this Court reported .in Patula Subba Rao v. G. Ganga Rao 1984 (I) O.L.R. 28 it has been observed that non-consideration of material evidence causes gross miscarriage of Justice. When an appellate Court reverses the decision of the trial Court, it is to consider all the materials on the basis of which the trial Court arrived at the inference of fact. Non-consideration of materials by the appellate Court which" if accepted, would affect its finding of fact would amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and the appellate judgment would become vulnerable. High Court in such cases' can exercise the power of revision to interfere with the money decree. 7. Since the appellate Court did not give a finding to discard the evidence of d. w. 2, I heard the matter. D. w. 2 positively stated that Plaintiff did not pay the money and he received the amount from Defendant No. J. No cross-examination was made regarding the amount received by d. w. 2 The case of the Plaintiff is not that a lesser amount was paid by Defendant No. 1. His case was that the Defendant No. 1 did not pay the amount. The appellate Court made out a third case for which Defendant No. 1 had no opportunity to explain. I am inclined to accept the evidence of d. w.2 which would completely negative the finding of the appellate Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision is allowed, the appellate judgment is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. In view of the relationship of the parties, 1 direct both parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed