JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard learned Advocate Shri S.D. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Respondent is duly served. 2. This Civil Revision Application raises a question as to whether respectability and veracity of a witness necessarily dependant upon his status in life. 3. The petitioner herein had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent (original defendant) on 22-9-1980. Written agreement with regard to said loan transaction was also prepared. The respondent did not repay the hand loan and, therefore, the petitioners served a notice dated 8-9-1983 on the respondent. The respondent did not reply the notice. He did not repay the amount. The petitioner, therefore, was compelled to file Regular Civil Suit No. 637/1983 against the respondent for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 2,500/- and further interest. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 13-2-1986. 4. The respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/1986. Learned 5th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, by his judgment dated 17-3-1990 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial Court. He dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. 5. The claim in the suit was below Rs. 3,000/- and, therefore, petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge in this Civil Revision Application. 6. Learned Advocate Shri S.D. Kulkarni vehemently submitted that the entire approach of the Appellate Court is erroneous and, therefore, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside. He pointed out that the learned Appellate Judge has changed the entire complexion of the issue involved and reversed the findings of the trial Court on conjectures and surmises. Learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni tried to point out the erroneous approach of the Appellate Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence. Learned Appellate Judge has given undue importance to the status of a witness rather than the intrinsic value of the testimony. Learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni further points out that the Appellate Judge has made out altogether new case which has not been pleaded by the parties and reversed the well reasoned findings of the trial Judge. 7. I gave anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the respondent had taken hand loan of Rs. 2,500/- from the petitioner. 7. I gave anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the respondent had taken hand loan of Rs. 2,500/- from the petitioner. The defence of the respondent is that he had repaid entire amount of hand loan to the petitioner. If this admitted position is taken into account, the learned Appellate Judge should not have changed the entire complexion of the case. Learned Appellate Judge has made out altogether a new case for the respondent-defendant that the husband of the petitioner was doing money lending business and the suit transaction was part of it. He had drawn this inference only because husband of the petitioner purchased the stamp paper for the agreement Exh. 23. In fact, the respondent-defendant has not made out such type of case in the written statement. This approach of the learned Appellate Judge in manifestly incorrect and erroneous. The learned Appellate Judge has completely lost sight of the admitted fact that the respondent-defendant has made out a case of satisfaction. He has completely ignored the admitted fact that respondent-defendant had taken a hand loan from the petitioner. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Judge, it is clearly seen that the learned Appellate Judge has reversed the well reasoned findings of the learned trial Judge on mere conjectures and surmises. The learned Appellate Judge has proceeded to hold that the amount which was advanced to the respondent-defendant must be of the husband of the petitioner. In the absence of a specific plea of such type, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to make out altogether new case for the respondent-defendant. It is clearly seen that the Appellate Judge has adopted a wrong approach in the matter of appreciation of evidence and because of this wrong approach there is miscarriage of justice. 8. There is another glaring error committed by the Appellate Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence. The Appellate Judge has specifically come to the conclusion that the oral evidence on the point of satisfaction of a debt brought by the respondent-defendant is not satisfactory. Learned Appellate Judge has expressed full agreement with the observations of the trial Judge in this behalf. The Appellate Judge has specifically come to the conclusion that the oral evidence on the point of satisfaction of a debt brought by the respondent-defendant is not satisfactory. Learned Appellate Judge has expressed full agreement with the observations of the trial Judge in this behalf. Learned Appellate Judge has categorically observed in the body of the judgment that the evidence of the witnesses of respondent-defendant on the plea of satisfaction is not satisfactory and the witnesses spoke falsehood with regard to theory of repayment. In spite of clear-cut finding with regard to probative value of the oral evidence tendered by the respondent-defendant on the point of theory of satisfaction, the Appellate Judge has ultimately concluded that loan must have been repaid. This finding is clearly erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. The witnesses of the respondent-defendant spoke about money lending transactions of the husband of the petitioner. From this evidence no legitimate inference could be drawn that the petitioner is carrying on money lending business without licence. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is doing money lending business. The evidence on record does not indicate that the petitioner has made similar kind of transactions. Isolated transaction does not constitute money lending business. 9. Learned Appellate Judge is not at all certain about the nature of the document on which reliance is placed in order to show that there exists a transaction of hand loan between the parties to the suit. Learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the document is in the nature of the agreement. Learned Appellant Judge has expressed full agreement with the view of the learned trial Judge. These observations are as under: "After persual of the contents of Exh. 23 to some extent I do agree with the trial Court, but it appears to me that the trial Court has not given necessary consideration to material portions of the deed i.e. the contents." However, he has expressed that the document is either in the nature of bond or a promissory note. Finally he has concluded that the document is a promissory note. 10. The respondent-defendant has admitted in his oral evidence that till 18-7-1982 he had not repaid even the principal amount. Learned trial Judge has rightly given due weightage to this admission. However, this admission has been totally ignored by the Appellate Judge. Finally he has concluded that the document is a promissory note. 10. The respondent-defendant has admitted in his oral evidence that till 18-7-1982 he had not repaid even the principal amount. Learned trial Judge has rightly given due weightage to this admission. However, this admission has been totally ignored by the Appellate Judge. After having ignored the clear-cut admission of the respondent-defendant with regard to outstanding dues, the learned Appellate Judge has held that the entire amount has been repaid. At the cost of repetition, I would like to mention that the learned Appellate Judge has emphatically concluded that the oral evidence of witnesses brought by the respondent-defendant on the point of theory of satisfaction of a hand loan is not satisfactory and convincing. The Appellate Judge has branded the evidence of the respondent-defendant in this behalf as a falsehood. In spite of this conclusion the learned Appellate Judge has jumped to a conclusion that the respondent-defendant has satisfied the entire loan amount. This finding of the learned Appellate Judge is not only erroneous but perverse. 11. The respondent-defendant has testified in his evidence that he had maintained his account books. The account book was not brought on record by the respondent-defendant in order to show that he repaid the whole of the amount of hand loan. He has stated that he has maintained diary. This diary is not brought before the Court. One extract from diary is brought on record to show how hand loan has been repaid. Without there being a diary or account book on record the learned Appellate Judge has given preferential treatment to the extract on the ground that the respondent is a school teacher. The learned Judge has been completely swayed away by the status of the respondent-defendant. Learned Appellate Judge has observed as under: "Apart from all this the appellant admittedly a school teacher. Considering his status and the evidence discussed above, I find it difficult to believe that he would have stated false facts on oath." 12. The respectability and veracity of a witness is not necessarily dependant upon the status in life. Simply because respondent-defendant is a school teacher, it cannot be presumed that whatever is deposed by the respondent-defendant is a gospel truth. It is wrong to conclude on the basis of mere status of a witness in life that witness being teacher, he would not tell a falsehood. Simply because respondent-defendant is a school teacher, it cannot be presumed that whatever is deposed by the respondent-defendant is a gospel truth. It is wrong to conclude on the basis of mere status of a witness in life that witness being teacher, he would not tell a falsehood. The credibility of the witness is not to be decided on the basis of mere status of a witness. If this logic is allowed to prevail, then person having low status or no status, does not find place in the temple of justice. Quest should be for the truth rather than the status of person. Persons involved in the matter of dispensation of justice should bear in mind the maxim "Justitia Non Novit Patrem Nec Matrem, Solam Veritatem Spectat justitia". It means justice knows neither father nor mother, but regards truth alone. Reference with profit can be made to (Waman Ganesh v. Sarubai)1, A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 106. Attesting witnesses of will were cultivators. Their evidence was discarded on the ground that they were not men of status. Reversing the decision of Judicial Commissioner, the Privy Council held that low status of witness is not sufficient to discredit him. Worth of a witness is to be measured and weighed on the basis of touchstone of cross examination and yardstick of probability. After having found the evidence satisfactory, the evidence is liable to be accepted and acted upon. Learned Appellate Judge has ignored the damaging admissions given by the respondent-defendant in the matter of outstanding dues and has driven himself to erroneous and perverse conclusion that the respondent-defendant being a school teacher, would not tell a falsehood and after having committed grave error, set aside the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. After having considered the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the clear opinion that the learned Appellate Judge has committed material irregularity and illegality. The entire approach of the learned Appellate Judge is totally erroneous. He has not properly appreciated the testimony of the witnesses in proper perspective. The conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Judge suffer from perversity. Under the circumstance, the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge is liable to be set aside. 14. The Civil Revision Application succeeds. The order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 17-3-1990 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/1986 is set aside. The conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Judge suffer from perversity. Under the circumstance, the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge is liable to be set aside. 14. The Civil Revision Application succeeds. The order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 17-3-1990 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/1986 is set aside. The order of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon, is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision application allowed.