JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.91 of Addl. District Judge, Ujjain passed in Small Cause Suit No. 15/90, whereby a decree of Rs. 785/- has been granted against the defendant-applicant. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit before the small cause Court (Court of Addl. District Judge) Ujjain with the assertion that he is running a paper 'Awantika' and the defendant was working as agent. In the regular course of transaction some money remained out-standing against the defendant and thereafter a final bill of Rs. 785/- was given to the defendant who endorsed it and thereafter a notice was given, but the defendant failed to pay. Hence, the suit, the defendant denied the contention of the plaintiff and submitted that he has got nothing to do with the Nagar News Agency. The learned trial judge has accepted the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Hence, this revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no document showing the agency in the name of defendant-applicant has been proved by the plaintiff and therefore the decree is bad. As against it learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has accepted his signature on Ex. P/2 and has not explained as to how and in what capacity he received that bill and that goes to show that he accepted the liability and was really working as an agent of the plaintiff. It is an established principle of law that revisional Court shall not disturb the finding of fact even if it can come to a different conclusion on close scrutiny of the evidence, if it is supportable otherwise and therefore it will have to be seen as to whether the finding is perverse or whether there is no consideration of material piece of evidence. The defendant-applicant has admitted in para-2 of his statement that Ex. P/2 contains his signature at place 'A' to 'A' and in the next sentence he says that he does not know who has given him this paper. This goes to show that the bill was handed over to defendant, he endorsed it at the back and as such burden lies on him to explain under what capacity he received the bill. This goes to show that the bill was handed over to defendant, he endorsed it at the back and as such burden lies on him to explain under what capacity he received the bill. Now, in view of the statement of plaintiff and his witness that the defendant was working as agent, non-explanation of defendant about the endorsement at the back of the bill Ex. P/2 goes to show the preponderance of the probability of the plaintiff's case. Thus, the decree appears to be correct it calls for no interference. As such, revision fails and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.