H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision under Section 18 of Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 15-9-1993 given in SC 6465 of 1988 decreeing the claim made by the claimants-opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 8,825/- against defendant-revisionist with interest at the rate of 10% p. a. from the date of suit till realisation with costs. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS case has been that defendant 1 had purchased a National Savings Certificate of seven years II Issue from the plaintiff of face value of Rs. 17,500/ -. Out of the above said National Savings certificate, one National Savings Certificate (II Issue) bearing No. 7ns/h. O. 437797, dated 29-12-1978 of value of Rs. 5,000/- is in the name of 2nd defendant. Remaining National Savings Certificate were in the name of 1st defendant. Plaintiff averred that after maturity 1st defendant presented the same before the plaintiff for its encashment together with interest accrued thereon. Plaintiffs case is that due to clerical error excess amount has been paid to the defendants as against the actual amount of Rs. 26,250/- payable to the defendant a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has been paid. During the course of audit, this excess payment had come to the notice and was brought to the notice of the defendants vide letter dated 16-6-1987. But the defendants instead of repaying the excess amount received by them, got issued a legal notice dated 11-7-1987 through their Counsel and denied excess payment. They asserted that the amount as per maturity value of the National Savings Certificate was paid and nothing was paid in excess. As such, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 8,750/- as according to the plaintiff, defendant did not pay of that excess amount. Plaintiff therefore filed this suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 8,750/- with interest at the rate of 10% p. a. The plaintiffs suit was contested by the defendants i. e. , revisionists-petitioners and it was averred that the suit was not maintainable and barred by time. It was further asserted that it is wrong to say that a sum of Rs. 8,750/- was paid in excess to the defendants. Defendants asserted that plaintiff in order to cover up their misappropriation has tried to fasten unlawful liability on the defendants. It was further asserted that it is wrong to say that a sum of Rs. 8,750/- was paid in excess to the defendants. Defendants asserted that plaintiff in order to cover up their misappropriation has tried to fasten unlawful liability on the defendants. Defendants asserted that defendants have not been paid any amount in excess to the amount as exhibited and shown in the National Savings Certificate. They further averred that certificates were surrendered on 30-12-1985. Defendants asserted that taking full advantage of their signature on the blank form, entry was made by the clerk and he played fraud by fabricating that entry. It has been averred that probably when the fraud was exposed in the audit, the officials of the plaintiff have thrown the blame on the defendants. Defendants denied their liability to pay the amount. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have been examined. P. W. 1 has been the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office on the date of presentation of said National Savings Certificate by the defendants. Paintiff has not produced Srinivas-postal clerk who is alleged to have made the entries on the back side of the National Savings Certificate. P. W. 2 is the person who was Sub-Postmaster at the relevant point of time. The Small Causes Court Judge opined that as the documents namely Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-10 have been signed by the defendants, then they must have been paid excess amount by the plaintiffs clerk with their seal. The Court opined that D,w. 1 being an Engineering graduate and also one of the partners of 2nd defendant's firm, as such, there could not have been any semblance of negligence on the part of the D. W. 1. The Trial Court observed that in view of this discussion and regard being had to the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 coupled with Ex. P-l to ex. P-10, he had no hesitation to say that the plaintiff had made excess payment to the tune of Rs. 8,750/- taking the National Savings certificate as V Issue instead of II Issue and thus decreed the plaintiffs suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have come up before this Court in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act. P-10, he had no hesitation to say that the plaintiff had made excess payment to the tune of Rs. 8,750/- taking the National Savings certificate as V Issue instead of II Issue and thus decreed the plaintiffs suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have come up before this Court in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants Sri K. N. Phanindra who is holding brief for Sri D. L. N. Rao. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court is not according to law and it is based on inadmissible evidence and the Court below erred in law in relying the evidence of p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 which was inadmissible as they admit that they had no personal knowledge of the payment of amount made to the defendants-revisionists applicants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the finding being based on an inadmissible evidence cannot be said to be according to law. Learned Counsel further submitted that best evidence in this regard has not been produced and no sufficient explanation has been given for non-production thereof. Elaborating his contention, learned Counsel contended Srinivas-clerk who is alleged to have made excess payment has not been produced in the witness-box to prove the entry of payment as well as to face the cross-examination. Learned counsel contended even though plaintiff has got his address (Srinivas i. e. , Clerk's) but he has not been summoned and produced, instead shelter was taken on the plea that Srinivas-clerk has resigned. Learned counsel contended that not only Srinivas-clerk has not been produced before the Court, but the accounts of register of payment which is admitted by the respondent's witness to have been maintained in plaintiffs office has not been produced because entries in that account would have thrown light as to what actual amount was paid to the defendants-revisionists. It would have thrown much light. Learned Counsel for the applicants invited my attention to various parties' statement and submitted that the Trial Court did not apply its mind to those portions. It would have thrown much light. Learned Counsel for the applicants invited my attention to various parties' statement and submitted that the Trial Court did not apply its mind to those portions. Learned Counsel contended that the Trial Court committed an error and acted illegally in not taking into account of plaintiffs failure in not producing all the material evidence consisting of the clerk in the Post office Sri Srinivas as well as their failure to produce the cash ledger i. e. , being maintained in the office in respect of payments made at the time of surrendering of National Savings Certificates. Had this register been produced, learned Counsel contended, they would have gone against the plaintiffs case. So an adverse presumption ought to have been raised by the Court below from these circumstances. Learned Counsel contended that this writing on the back side of the National Savings Certificate is admittedly of the Clerk, so clerk should have been produced. In view of this, learned Counsel contended that the decision of the Court below is not according to law and it deserves to be set aside by exercise of power under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act. Learned counsel contended that no departmental enquiry had been conducted as admitted by the P. Ws. on the question why and how the Clerk made the excess payment i. e. , the amount exceeding the maturity value of the national Savings Certificates. ( 5 ) THESE contentions raised on behalf of the applicants' Counsel have been hotly contested on behalf of the respondent by Sri B. Pape Gowda. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that it is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence that amount in excess has been paid to the defendants and defendants have received it and so they are liable to refund it. As such, notice was given and when defendants did not do so and refund the money so the suit was filed. Learned Counsel contended that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 18 of karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, though may not be as limited as jurisdiction under Section 115, but it is also not as wide as that of the I appellate Court which has got the jurisdiction to reverse or set aside the finding of fact. Learned Counsel contended that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 18 of karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, though may not be as limited as jurisdiction under Section 115, but it is also not as wide as that of the I appellate Court which has got the jurisdiction to reverse or set aside the finding of fact. Learned Counsel contended that this Court has to look into the question whether the decision given is according to law or not and if it is satisfied that the finding and the judgment and decree is according to law, then it has not to interfere with it. ( 6 ) HERE the primary contention raised by the applicant relates to the finding recorded by the Trial Court which was arrived at after appreciation of evidence and that it did not amount to error of law. So this Court should not interfere with the finding and order of the Court below. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel further contended that sri Srinivas-clerk concerned had resigned. The excess payment came to the notice of the Post Office five years later when the audit did take place. So no action can either be taken against the clerk-Srinivas nor he could be summoned as he had resigned. So no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiffs case. Learned Counsel contended that there is admission of the defendants to have received a sum of Rs. 35,000/~ as the endorsement on the back of the National Savings certificate bears the signature of the defendant though no doubt entry has been made by the clerk concerned namely Sri Srinivas. He submitted srinivas could not be summoned as he had resigned and was not in the employment of the plaintiff. ( 7 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties. The Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 as per its section 18 provides for revision from the order of Judge Small Causes court to this Court. Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act reads as under. "section 18. Revision from decrees and order of Small causes Court. The Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 as per its section 18 provides for revision from the order of Judge Small Causes court to this Court. Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act reads as under. "section 18. Revision from decrees and order of Small causes Court. The High Court for the purposes of satisfying itself that the decree and order made in any case decided by a court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such orders in respect of that as it thinks fit". A reading of this section per se reveals that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act is not so limited as jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of Code of Civil procedure. Under Section 115 of Code jurisdiction of this Court is confined to juris dictional error namely usurpation of jurisdiction not vested, illegal refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested or where the Court is shown to have acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, that is confined to juris dictional error. The same is not the scope of Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act. It is wider. The Court has to examine whether the overall decision given by the Small Causes Court is according to law, that it does not suffer from error of law and that error of law whether it has affected the decision of the case on merits. If it has committed error of law or breach of law, then if the decision has the effect in resulting in an erroneous finding and miscarriage of justice then this Court may interfere. The expression "according to law" has been the subject-matter of consideration in many decisions and finally in the case of Hari Shankar and Others v Rao girdhari Lal Chowdhury, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under. "the phrase "according to law" refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision, which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. "the phrase "according to law" refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision, which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. The section is thus framed to confer larger powers than the power to correct error of jurisdiction to which Section 115 is limited. But it must not be overlooked that the section in spite of its apparent width of language where it confers a power on the high Court to pass such order as the High Court may think fit, is controlled by the opening words, where it says that the High court may send for the record of the case to satisfy itself that the decision is "according to law". It stands to reason that if it was considered necessary that there should be a rehearing, a right of appeal would be a more appropriate remedy, but the Act says that there is to be no further appeal". Their Lordships made a reference to Section 25 of the provisions of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act which is pari materia to Section 18 and their Lordships observed. "the section we are dealing with is almost the same as Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That section has been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer would made a broad spectrum commencing, at one end, with the view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it, and ending, at the other, with a power of interference a little better than what an appeal gives. It is useless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsions of certain unusual facts. It is useless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsions of certain unusual facts. It is sufficient to say that we consider that the most accurate exposition of the meaning of such sections is that of Beaumont, C. J. (as he then was) in Bell and Company Limited v Waman Hemaraj, where the learned chief Justice, dealing with Section 25 of the Provincial Small causes Courts Act, observed: 'the object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction, or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the high Court would not have arrived at'. This observation has our full concurrence". ( 8 ) IN the case of Jagdish Prasad v Smt, Angoori Devi , Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that if Trial Court has totally misconceived the legal position and has assumed a position, by wrongly placing the burden of proof, on the one or which has resulted in illegal approach of trial and decision leading to miscarriage of justice, the revi-sional court or authority is entitled to point out legal error and to rectify the defect as said decision cannot be said to be according to law. ( 9 ) KEEPING these principles in view it has to be examined whether the court has acted in breach of law and or under misconception of law and legal position and has based its decision either on the evidence which should not have been admitted or based its decision without applying its mind to the presumption of law that law requires to be raised under section 114 of the Evidence Act. If so, whether because of these mistakes, the overall decision has or has not resulted in causing miscarriage of justice. ( 10 ) IT is one of the well-settled principles of law that when a person makes a claim, the burden lies on him to establish his case by cogent evidence, reliable and admissible piece of evidence. A finding of fact arrived at by a Court on the basis of evidence which is not admissible or by refusing to take into consideration any piece of evidence which is admissible or by refusing to take note of the presumption under law which ought to have been raised in the circumstances of the case, then that finding can be said to have been arrived at not in accordance with law or where the Court wrongly places a burden of proof and acts contrary to law and as a result thereof, a decision comes out causing injustice, it may be said to be not according to law. ( 11 ) LET us examine the facts of the case. P. W. 1 in cross-examination admits that he was not working in Yeshwantpur Post Office and Sri dayakar Rao was the Sub-Postmaster of Yeshwanthpur Post Office on 30-12-1985 and one Sri Srinivas P. clerk was working in Yeshwanthapur post Office. P. W. 1 states that. "i was not present at the time of making payment on that day. I have given evidence on the basis of records. I have no personal knowledge regarding the payments made to the defendant". He further states that. "there is no enquiry in the department regarding this audit objection". He states that explanation was taken from the Sub-Postmaster. He states that. "i do not remember as to whether explanation of concerned clerk was also taken or not for excess payment made. Explanation given by Sub-Postmaster is available in file. Since Sub-Postmaster has retired, no enquiry is instituted so far against him". He states that explanation was taken from the Sub-Postmaster. He states that. "i do not remember as to whether explanation of concerned clerk was also taken or not for excess payment made. Explanation given by Sub-Postmaster is available in file. Since Sub-Postmaster has retired, no enquiry is instituted so far against him". So earlier statement shows that he was not a direct witness of payment of money to the defendants. He has no personal knowledge, as he admits, of the payment made. I will come to the record later on. When he had no personal knowledge, his evidence may not be admissible to prove that excess amount was actually paid to the defendants. Records must be examined. But this evidence of P. W. 1 not having seen the payment made, his evidence could not be admissible or of any value on this aspect of the matter. P. W. 2-Sri G. S. Dayakar Rao has been produced who is alleged to have retired from the office. He says that he worked as Sub-Postmaster from March 1981 till 31st December, 1985. He states on 31-12-1985 on attaining superannuation he had retired from service. He states that one Mr. Srinivas was working as clerk under him in yeshwanthpur Post Office. He states that payment in respect of Ex. P-1 to ex. P-10 were made by the counter clerk. But in this case, same has been made by Srinivas to Ravi Gopal. Srinivas is the person who is alleged to have been their clerk who had made payment. He has not been produced in support of plaintiffs case, though he was an employee of the office. Learned Counsel submitted that he had resigned, so he could not be summoned. I am unable to accept this contention. Srinivas was a very important witness. It does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that simply because Srinivas had resigned, he could not be summoned, It has come in evidence of the plaintiffs own witness P. W. 1 in the course of cross-examination who states that the permanent address of all employees of our department will be available with the department. Srinivas was a permanent employee. When his address was also available, why he was not summoned. No satisfactory explanation has been given. Srinivas was a permanent employee. When his address was also available, why he was not summoned. No satisfactory explanation has been given. It is not only that P. W. 2 their own witness also states that "i am told that Srinivas has resigned and has joined some bank service". If this P. W. 2 could have been summoned after his retirement, plaintiff-respondent could have also summoned and produced Srinivas-clerk who is alleged to have made payment. It is stated in this case Srinivas himself filled up the contents of Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-10. Failure to produce their own clerk whose address is available with the plaintiff, without any valid reason as well as failure to produce the cash ledger in respect of payment which cash ledger, P. W. 2 states, is maintained in respect of payments made at the time of surrender of National Savings Certificate on 30-12-1985 why these have not been produced? This failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce the cash ledger relating to payment made without any valid reason as well as failure to produce their clerk without any valid reason, as Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act being applicable to the case, gave rise to an adverse presumption against the plaintiffs case and Trial Court should have raised an adverse presumption of law against the plaintiff-respondent's case under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. Failure to raise this presumption amounts to illegality or to Courts not acting according to law. The decision can be said to have been given not according to law as the adverse presumption should have been raised that if that witness i. e. , Srinivas-clerk or the cash ledger would have been produced, things could have gone against the plaintiffs own case, but has not been raised by Court below illegally. The production of this cash ledger and production of Srinivas-clerk was essential further to explain the situation, in what circumstances and how excess payment was made by him or by whom particularly when the maturity value of the certificate had already been clearly mentioned and noted in the National Savings Certificate and the amount exhibited as maturity value of the certificate was to be paid and nothing more. The process of payment which has been explained further creates a doubt about the case of the plaintiff. The process of payment which has been explained further creates a doubt about the case of the plaintiff. P. W. 2 in the course of cross-examination has stated that when National Savings Certificates are presented for encashment, the concerned clerk will verify and certify the payment to be made and will present the same before Sub-Postmaster and after approval of sub-post master, the amount will be paid. He further says, srinivas scrutinised Ex. P-1 to P-10 and thereafter he verified them and thereafter payment was made. The maturity value of Ex. P-1 to P-10 are printed on the National Saving Certificates. When this is so, circumstances had to be explained by the plaintiff how amount in excess was paid and this could be explained by person paying i. e. , clerk Srinivas. The Court below has not applied its mind and has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and depositions of plaintiffs witnesses. When endorsement was admittedly made by some clerk and the defendant has stated on oath that he had put his signature on blank space and thereafter he received the money, coupled with other circumstances creates doubt about the theory of excess payment of amount than the maturity value of NSCs being made by the Postal Authorities to defendants as asserted by the plaintiff. Really some misappropriation of money has been made in the post office and by the staff, otherwise cash ledger which is maintained in the post office in respect of payments made at the time of surrender of National Savings Certificate could have been produced. Looking to the overall circumstances and failure of the court to raise adverse presumption and failure of the plaintiff to produce the material witnesses of the payment clerk who is alleged to have made the payment, Srinivas P. and their failure to produce the cash ledger clearly reveals that the Court below acted illegally or in breach of law. It committed an error of law and further it committed an error of law in not taking notice of this material piece of evidence. It further committed error of law in not taking note of that P. W. 1's evidence was inadmissible to prove the alleged actual excess payment to defendants- revisionist. It committed an error of law and further it committed an error of law in not taking notice of this material piece of evidence. It further committed error of law in not taking note of that P. W. 1's evidence was inadmissible to prove the alleged actual excess payment to defendants- revisionist. Therefore the finding of Trial Court appears to have been recorded on the basis of inadmissible piece of evidence and further without proof of the fact alleged in plaint of actual payment of sums exceeding the maturity value. In this view of the matter, errors of law have been committed by the small Causes Court by illegally fastening the liability on the defendants for payment of money, when even no enquiry has been made in respect of payment clerk-Srinivas also. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the decision of the case has not been according to law and the plaintiff has failed to establish by admissible evidence his case of excess payment to the defendants. I would not have interfered with the finding of Court below if such errors of law had not been committed by the Trial Court which really resulted in causing injustice or injury to the defendants, by fastening liability of sums i. e. , alleged excess sum on defendants aforesaid, on the basis of inadmissible evidence as well without considering the material circumstantial evidence as well as ignoring the legal presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act which was required to raise. Thus considered, revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside, and the suit is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. --- *** --- .