ORDER The petitioner-defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2006 in S.C. No. 329 of 2003 on the f:L1e of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysore, decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,893/- to the respondent-plaintiff with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs. 9,560/- from the date of suit till realisation, has presented the instant revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Mysore in S.C. No. 329 of 2003 seeking decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,893/with costs current and future interest and other incidental reliefs. 3. The Trial Court after registering the case, has issued the summons to the petitioner-defendant. In reply to the same, petitioner herein appeared through the Counsel and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint in toto and specifically contended that, he does not have any transaction with the respondent-plaintiff regarding the purchase of jungle wood and prayed that, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. To substantiate the case of the respondent-plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 8; whereas, the petitioner-defendant got examined himself as D.W. 1 and got examined only Exhibit D. 1. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has raised three points for its consideration. They are as follows.- "(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 13,893/-? (ii) Whether the defendant proves that he has settled the dues, he had no transaction with Smt. Sharadamma and she is a stranger to him? (iii) What order?" 4. The Trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, other relevant material available on file and in view of the admission made by the petitioner that, they had earlier transaction with one Mohan of Mohan Timber Traders with reference to Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 and Ex. D. 1, has recorded the specific finding at paragraph 8 by assigning cogent reasons and answered the Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No. 2 in the negative. P. 2 and P. 3 and Ex. D. 1, has recorded the specific finding at paragraph 8 by assigning cogent reasons and answered the Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No. 2 in the negative. Accordingly, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,893/- to the respondent-plaintiff with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 9,560/- from the date of suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below, petitioner-defendant has presented the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondent. 6. After careful perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and after thorough evaluation of the entire original records available on file threadbare, it emerges on the face of the original records that, there is no error or illegality as such committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent herein. The Trial Court after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has recorded specific finding that, the petitioner has in fact, transacted with the respondent-plaintiff and purchased goods worth a sum of Rs. 13,893/-. However, it is the case of petitioner that, the respondent-plaintiff is a stranger to him and he has not transacted with the said Smt. Sharadamma, who is none other than the mother of the power of attorney holder and he has stated in his cross-examination that, his mother Sharadamma is the Proprietor, himself and his three brothers are doing the business on behalf of their mother and that, the accounts are maintained by the elder brother. Further, it is observed by the Trial Court that, the respondent-plaintiff, to a question as to whether the petitioner-defendant has put the signature in Ex. P. 2, he answered that, the father and son had come together and the defendant obtained the signature of his son on the receipt and took the timber. Further, the plaintiff has stated that, there was no impediment for him to take the signature of the defendant. Further, Ex. D. 1 is in respect of Proprietor, Mohan Timber Traders and this receipt is given in full settlement of the claim pertaining to Mohan Timber Traders. Further, the plaintiff has stated that, there was no impediment for him to take the signature of the defendant. Further, Ex. D. 1 is in respect of Proprietor, Mohan Timber Traders and this receipt is given in full settlement of the claim pertaining to Mohan Timber Traders. This has been clearly admitted by the power of attorney holder of respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that, it is crystal clear that in Ex. D. 1, petitioner has not put his signature and therefore, it can be easily held that, the petitioner-defendnat is not in the habit of putting his signature in the receipts and bills. Further, the Trial Court has specifically observed that, there is documentary evidence to show that the challans are issued and in the reply notice Ex. P. 7, it is clearly stated that "A certain time ago, my client had transaction with one V.T. Mohan of Mohan Timber Traders and his entire accounts are settled, except that my client had no other transaction with any other person or company for purchase of wood specified in your notice". Which clearly indicates that, he had transaction with Mohan Timber Traders and it is settled. But so far as this transaction with V.T. Mohan is concerned, he has tried to escape from the payment of amount. Accordingly, the Trial Court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative and Point No. 2 in the negative by assigning cogent reasons at paragraph 8 of its judgment. In view of categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds to entertain the instant revision petition. 7. Further, it is significant to note after careful evaluation of the entire original records that, as per Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 respectively dated 24th January, 2001 and 6th February, 2001, the respondent-plaintiff has supplied jungle wood of 27.68 cft and 84.79 cft respectively to the petitioner herein, wherein the petitioner himself or one of his representative has received and put his signature in the column reserved for "receiver's signature". After careful verification of the signatures in Exs. P. 2 and P. 3, it emerge that, both the signatures tally with each other. If the signature in Ex. After careful verification of the signatures in Exs. P. 2 and P. 3, it emerge that, both the signatures tally with each other. If the signature in Ex. P. 2 and P. 3 tallies, then, it proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, there in fact, was a transaction between the petitioner and respondent. If this fact is taken into consideration, then the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent herein. Therefore, I do not find any material irregularity as such committed by the Trial Court nor the petitioner-defendant has made out any good grounds to entertain the instant revision petition. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits.