HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small causes Courts' Act arises from the Judgment and decree dated 19th december, 1995 in Small cause suit No. SC 7713/94 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6% per annum. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that, according to plaintiff's case the defendant, who is the distant relative of the plaintiff approached the plaintiff on 1. 10. 1993 and sought a handloan of Rs. 15,000/- to meet his immediate need. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed a promissory note and the consideration receipt and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of borrowal. Plaintiff-respondents case is that he approached the defendant to pay back the amount with interest, but defendant gave evasive replies and inspite of notice of demand the defendant failed to pay off that amount, so plaintiff filed the suit. Plaintiff has also stated that pronote has been misplaced, but the consideration receipt is being produced. In the plaint he has further stated that he will indemnify the claim against any other person on the said pronote. The plaintiff, as such claimed that decree for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -, as principal and Rs. 1650/- towards the interest in total for a sum of rs. 16,650/ -. ( 3 ) THE defendant - revision petitioner filed the written statement, denied the maintainability of the suit as well as denied the plaint allegations including the allegations to the effect that the defendant had borrowed on 1. 10. 1993, a sum of Rs. 15,0007- as loan and that had to repay the sum with interest, as alleged in the plaint. The defendant also denied the execution of the pronote or receipt. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable. The Trial Court framed the following three issues :1. Whether the plaintiff prove that on 1. 10. 93 the defendant had borrowed hand loan of Rs. 15,0007- from him and has executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of him agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest? 2. The Trial Court framed the following three issues :1. Whether the plaintiff prove that on 1. 10. 93 the defendant had borrowed hand loan of Rs. 15,0007- from him and has executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of him agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest? 2. Whether the plaintiff prove that defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount inspite of repeated demands and a legal notice? 3. Whether the plaintiff prove that he has lost on demand promissory note? ( 4 ) HAS the plaintiff offered to indemnify all the claims of any other person on the lost on demand promissory note that may be put forward in case it is found. 4. The Trial Court examined the evidence and held that the plaintiff has in his plaint vide para-4 has stated that, on demand promissory note executed by defendant in relation to suit transaction is misplaced. Plaintiff has stated that he has produced the consideration receipt and shall indemnify any claim of any person on the said demand pronote. The Court below on a consideration of evidence of P. W. 2, opined that on demand pronote executed by the defendant did existed in the plaintiff's possession, but has gone out of his possession before the date of the suit. It further observed that plaintiff's evidence clearly indicates that plaintiff is unable to produce the pronote along with the plaint as the same is not in his possession which amounts to nothing but it has been lost, it further observed, that under Order 7 Rule 17 of the CPC that the plaintiff is suing on a lost negotiable instrument, an indemnity has to be given by him to the satisfaction of the Court against the claims of any other person upon the lost instrument. Learned Court below observed that unequivocal undertaking by the plaintiff in his pleading and in his evidence and his offer to indemnify the claim of any other person upon the lost instrument is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Order 7 Rule 16. It is the Court further observed that, if plaintiff succeeds, it will place an additional guard or direction to the effect, if later on somebody puts a claim on that lost document, the plaintiff shall indemnify. It is the Court further observed that, if plaintiff succeeds, it will place an additional guard or direction to the effect, if later on somebody puts a claim on that lost document, the plaintiff shall indemnify. The Court further found on scrutiny of the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness P. W. 2, who is the attesting witness of ex. P1, that the execution of the pronote and the receipt have been proved by admissible evidence of the P. Ws, and that the defendant has failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. The Court below, therefore recorded the finding to the effect that on 1. 10. 1993, defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed a promissory note and consideration receipt. It further found that ex. P1, the consideration receipt, does not disclose that deft had agreed to pay the alleged interest at the rate of 1% pm so the Court below rejected the claim for interest. It further found that the defendant did not repay the amount of loan. Having recorded these findings the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for principal sum of Rs. 15,000/- and not for interest which was claimed in the plaint from the date of transaction till the date of suit. ( 5 ) EXERCISING powers under Section 34 of the CPC, the Trial Court awarded 6% per annum interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation on the sum of Rs. 15. 000/-, that is, the amount of loan in respect of which decree had been passed against defendant. ( 6 ) DEFENDANT felt aggrieved from the Judgment and decree of the Court below and has come up in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts' Act. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant - revision petitioner contended that the finding about the transaction of loan and execution of the receipt and pronote is erroneous and it is based on misappreciation of evidence. That the evidence led by the plaintiff is not reliable. Learned Counsel contended that, even the requirements of Order 7 Rule 16 CPC have not been fulfilled. That the evidence led by the plaintiff is not reliable. Learned Counsel contended that, even the requirements of Order 7 Rule 16 CPC have not been fulfilled. The contentions of the Counsel for the revision Petitioner have hotly been contested by Sri Murthy Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Murthy Rao contended that jursidiction of this Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, even though it is wider under Section 115 of the CPC, it is not akin to that of a first Court of appeal. Learned Counsel contended that this case is concluded of finding of fact based on consideration of material evidence on record and the finding based on the appreciation of evidence on record need not be interfered with unless it could be shown that the decision was not according to law. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel made reference to the case of HARISHSHANKAR vs GIRDHERI and submitted that this decision is aptly applicable to interpretation of the expression according to law used in Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts' Act which is analagous and it is in the same terms, as Section 25 of the provincial small Causes Courts. The respondents Counsel further contended that, plaintiff had given an undertaking in writing in the plaint itself, where he has stated that the negotiable instrument, that is, the promissory note has been lost. It is not in his possession and somewhere misplaced and has stated that if any other person makes any claim on the basis of that document afterwards, after the suit is decreed, plaintiff undertakes to indemnify him. Learned Counsel contended that the Trial Court was satisfied with this undertaking and it has observed that, it can also provide the same in the decree that, if the document is found later by somebody else and claim is made on the basis of promissory note, even, then the plaintiff has undertaken to indemnify and will indemnify. Learned Counsel contended in this view of the matter, there is no need to interfere. ( 9 ) I have perused Section 18 of the Karhataka Small Causes Courts Act. Learned Counsel contended in this view of the matter, there is no need to interfere. ( 9 ) I have perused Section 18 of the Karhataka Small Causes Courts Act. It is similar to Section 25 of the provisions of Provincial small Causes Courts Act and under it the revisional Court can interfere only, in case the decision is found to be not in accordance with law, it can interfere only when the revision petitioner satisfies the Court that decision has not been according to law, as per principles defined in Harishankar's case (A. I. R. 1963 SC 698) that provides an yardstick. Learned Counsel too much assailed and emphasised on the question of credibility of the evidence. It has been well laid down in this case that the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at on the basis of appreciation of evidence, even if the High Court may come to a different conclusion, on the basis of appreciation of that evidence, from that of Trial Court, unless and until it is shown that the finding is based on inadmissible evidence or it has been arrived at after having ignored some material admissible piece of evidence or other admissible material or some other illegality has been committed which has a tendency to result in causing of injustice. the High Court or the Revisional Court merely because it come tc some different finding from that of Trial Court, it is entitled to interfere. It has been only laid down in Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act ordinarily finding on question of fact recorded by Trial Court cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction merely on the ground of misappreciation of evidence or on its reliability. ( 10 ) EVEN their Lordships dealing with the revisional power in the context of the proof where the expression is used which provides, in order to specify the legality or irregularity or propriety of such a finding in the case of RUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMA vs KALLYANI sulochana have been pleased to observe :"even a wider language used in Section 20 of the (Karnataka rent Control Act) cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or second Court of appeal, otherwise distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Even by the presence of the word 'propriety'. Even by the presence of the word 'propriety'. It cannot mean that there would be reappreciation of evidence. Of course the revisional court can come to a different conclusion, but not on reappreciation of evidence, on the contrary by confining itself to legality, regularity or propriety of the order impugned before it. "it observed in that case, the High Court was not right in reappreciating the entire evidence both oral and documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. Their Lordships observed that the High Court travelled beyond the jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, in my opinion this Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts' Act cannot and is not expected to reappreciate the evidence. No illegality has been shown nor it has been shown that there is any admissible piece of evidence which has been ignored by the Trial Court nor has it has been shown that, while the Court deciding the case and recording the findings on the issues in the case, has relied on inadmissible piece of evidence. In such circumstances this Court is not entitled to interfere with the finding of the Court on the issue regarding proof of transaction of loan and execution of pronote and consideration receipt. It is a finding of fact the first contention of the learned counsel is rejected. The second contention has also got no force. ( 11 ) ORDER 7 Rule 16 of CPC provides and reads as under :" Where the suit is founded upon a negotiable instrument, and it is proved that instrument is lost and indemnity is given by the i plaintiff, to the satisfaction of the Court against the claims of any other person of that instrument, the Court may pass such decree, as it would have passed, if the plaintiff had produced the instrument in Court when the plaint was presented and had at the same time delivered copy of the instrument to be filed with the plaint. "a reading of this provision clearly reveals that, in cases based on negotiable instruments and which is found to be lost, and the plaintiff has given indemnity to the satisfaction of Court, against the claims of any other person, if subsequently made on the basis of such an instrument (i. e. lost instrument), before passing such decree Court may pass the decree in the suit, as it would have been passed, in case the plaintiff along with the plaint would have produced or presented the said document and delivered a copy thereof with the plaint. The Court below examined the plaint allegations, the statement of plaintiff and had observed, that plaintiff was unable to produce that document along with plaint, since he was not in possession of the same and it amounts to nothing but loss of document. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint to indemnify the claim of another person, on the basis of such lost pronote, it further observed, that when passing the decree it can also put such condition and require the plaintiff to indemnify such person. Therefore being satisfied what has been stated in the plaint and the evidence, in my opinion the Court below did not commit any jurisdictional error or illegality in decreeing the suit. ( 12 ) IN the operative portion of the decree, this Court may provide and direct, that it may be added that : "in case anybody makes a claim against the defendant on the basis of the very said pronote which plaintiff has lost, the plaintiff will have to indemnify the defendant" The decree of the Court below is subject to this direction which should have been incorporated in the operative portion of the decree. This portion shall be taken as added in the decree passed by the Trial Court which I have mentioned above that plaintiff will indemnify, will undertake the indemnify deft, in case on the basis of that lost pronote dated 1. 10. 1993 executed by plaintiff in favour of deft anyone makes any claim. The decree is to be read subject to this direction. The revision petition, subject to above modification to be made in the decree is hereby disposed off as dismissed- No cost. --- *** --- .