JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 11.7.2003 passed by learned I ADJ, Neemuch in civil regular appeal No. 5-B/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Neemuch in civil suit No. 19-B/2001 was set aside, the present revision has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner on 12.1.2001 for realization of Rs. 6,500/- alleging that on 28.11.1999 a loan of Rs. 5,000/- was given to the petitioner by the respondent on payment of interest @ 2% per month upon executing a promissory note by the petitioner. Further case of the respondent is that inspite of assurance neither the principle nor the interest amount was paid, hence, notice for demand was issued, but of no avail, hence suit for realization of Rs. 6,500/- was filed. The defence of the petitioner is that out of loan amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was repaid on 24.9.2000 and Rs. 1,000/- as interest was paid on 25.9.2000. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Learned Court below framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed in part the suit to the extent that interest awarded from 28.1.1999 to 12.1.2001 @ 2% per month and from 12.1.2001 @ 6% per annum till realization. Learned trial Court also held that principal amount was paid by the petitioner. In appeal, suit was decreed and petitioner was asked to pay the amount of Rs. 6,500/- with interest. Aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by learned appellate Court the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a cogent evidence was given by the petitioner to prove the fact and there was no reason to disbelieve the fact. Learned counsel submits that petitioner and respondent both were working in the police department, therefore, there are a11 the probabilities for repayment as alleged by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the loan amount has been repaid. I have perused the record. In para 24 of the judgment the learned appellate Court has disbelieved the petitioner on the ground that conduct of petitioner is not in accordance with a prudent man. It was further submitted that the loan amount has been repaid. I have perused the record. In para 24 of the judgment the learned appellate Court has disbelieved the petitioner on the ground that conduct of petitioner is not in accordance with a prudent man. Learned appe11ate Court has held that at the time of taking the loan the petitioner executes the promissory note but at the time of repayment, that too on two occasions, neither obtains the receipt of repayment nor insists for return of the promissory note. Apart from this, one more important circumstance in this case is that according to the petitioner the repayment was made by him on 24.9.2000 and 25.9.2000, thereafter, on 6.10.2000, immediately after the alleged repayment a legal notice was· issued by the respondent, which was received by the petitioner but no reply was given which shows that petitioner's story which has been built-up by him is not correct. In view of this, the revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.