Short Note This revision petition is preferred under section 115 of C.P. Code by the defendant, challenging the legality and validity of a decree passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Ratlam, dated 30.11.1987, in appeal No. 7-B/85, confirming the judgment and decree passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam, on 26.8.1985 in Case No. 96-B/82. Since the claim in original suit was for Rs. 1,075/- and therefore, this revision was filed because the second appeal by virtue of section 101 of C.P. Code is barred. A suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant for damages amounting to Rs. 1,075/- essentially on the ground of defamation. In substance, the allegations were that a false complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent on 23.1.1979 under section 323 read with section 504 of IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam. It was alleged that pursuant to the said false complaint, appellant was summoned and was required to appear as many as thirteen times, he was required to take bail, required to engage a lawyer and eventually complaint was dismissed even for want of evidence and without sustaining the charges levelled against him. It is this filing of a complaint and its rejection which has given rise to file a suit and to claim damages to the extent of Rs. 1,075/-. This suit was resisted by the appellant inter-alia on the ground that it is barred by limitation, not having been preferred within one year from the date of dismissal of complaint and secondly the complaint filed was bona-fide and did make out some cause and case against the respondent (plaintiff). Evidence was led and eventually the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion while decreeing the suit that suit was very much within limitation, if calculated properly and secondly the complaint itself was mischievous, malicious and did not make out any reasonable ground to sustain in the Court of law and therefore, it was rightly rejected for want of evidence. It was held that in the absence of evidence, much less adequate, the dismissal of complaint has given rise to claim damages. It was also held that plaintiff was a man of status in the town and therefore, appellant (defendant) had no business to tarnish his image and malign his character. It was held that in the absence of evidence, much less adequate, the dismissal of complaint has given rise to claim damages. It was also held that plaintiff was a man of status in the town and therefore, appellant (defendant) had no business to tarnish his image and malign his character. It is on this finding the suit was decreed in its entirety and accordingly money decree for Rs. 1,075/- was passed. The appellant (defendant) felt dissatisfied with the said decree, preferred the first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ratlam, who by impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Judge. Even in the opinion of learned lower appellate Court, all the findings recorded on facts were not liable to be interfered and hence there was no substance found in the appeal which was accordingly dismissed. Since the second appeal in certain cases where the valuation is less than Rs. 3,000/- is barred, therefore, the appellant (defendant) has chosen to file revision under section 115 of C.P. Code as stated above and this is how this revision came to be filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Heard Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Karan Singh learned counsel for the non-applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the learned counsel reiterated the same arguments which were urged before the learned trial Judge and also before the lower appellate Court to support their respective contentions. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was to set aside the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the two Courts below and the submission by the learned counsel for the respondent was to uphold the impugned judgment and decree rendered by both the Courts. In substance, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant was, when there was some foundation for filing a complaint against the plaintiff in the criminal Court, no suit for damages can filed notwithstanding the dismissal of the complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for want of evidence. I am afraid, I cannot accept the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. In my opinion and after perusing the judgment of learned trial Judge and also that of lower appellate Court, this contention was fully dealt with and found to be merit-less. I am afraid, I cannot accept the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. In my opinion and after perusing the judgment of learned trial Judge and also that of lower appellate Court, this contention was fully dealt with and found to be merit-less. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence. In order to enable this Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, it is necessary for the petitioner to make out a jurisdictional legal issue, then only this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can step in and interferer fact that a complaint was filed in the Court of CJM which was dismissed for want of evidence was not disputed. It had given rise to file a suit was also not disputed. Both the Courts below have gone into the mailer and cannot to a conclusion that plaintiff was a reputed man in society and there was no justification on the part of the appellant to file any such complaint which was an event not tried on merits. Taking into account overall aspects of the case material on record finding rendered. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order which is accordingly dismissed. Looking to the nature of the controversy, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.