JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-8-2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. l-B/2006 by the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Tikamgarh whereby the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2006 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, has been reversed. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision in brief are, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7, 63 8/- with interest from the date of suit till the date of realization. It was contended in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff was doing the business of purchase of grain. The applicant/defendant was also purchasing the grain seeds for the agriculture purposes. On 8-7-1998, applicant herein purchased 180 kilograms Soyabean from the respondent for which an amount of Rs. 1,260/- was to be paid. Since this amount was not paid up to 8-2-1999, with interest an amount of Rs. 1,638/- was to be recovered by the respondent/plaintiff from the applicant. On 22-7-1999 again the accounts were settled and since the respondent/plaintiff has made purchase of wheat from the applicant, after adjusting the amount outstanding towards the applicant, Rs. 6,000/-was paid by the father of the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant. However, the wheat so purchased by the respondent/plaintiff was loaded in a tractor and when it was being transported, the tractor was stopped on way and the wheat was taken back by the applicant. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged and complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police and Town Inspector by the respondent. Since, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was to be recovered by the respondent/plaintiff from the applicant together with the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,638/-, thus, such a claim was made. 3. Denying the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff, a written statement was filed by the applicant categorically contending that no such wheat was ever purchased by the respondent/plaintiff nor any Soyabean was purchased by him on 8-7-1998. In fact the applicant has refused to sell any grain to the respondent/plaintiff because he was making the mischief in the payment of the price and was not paying the amount within time. When the applicant started selling the grains to other persons, the respondent/plaintiff threatened that he will rope the applicant in any false case. 4. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties. When the applicant started selling the grains to other persons, the respondent/plaintiff threatened that he will rope the applicant in any false case. 4. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The respondent/plaintiff produced a temporary receipt said to be written by him in the name of his father for payment of Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant. He produced a diary containing certain entries with respect to sale and purchase. However, nothing more evidence in writing was produced by the respondent/plaintiff. In his statement he admitted that he lodged a report in the police with respect to the incident, which has taken place on 2-7-1999. His witness also stated only this much that the payment was made by the father of the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant and wheat was loaded in a tractor but the tractor was stopped and the grain was taken back. The father of the respondent/plaintiff was examined and he also stated the same thing. In the cross-examination of PW-1 respondent/plaintiff, he admitted that there was no signature of applicant on the account diary maintained by the respondent/plaintiff. He further admitted that in some places in the said diary, the amount was acknowledged by putting signatures by some of the persons. He could not explain as to why signatures of applicant were not obtained on the said diary if any amount was outstanding towards the applicant. Again in Exhibit P-1 the receipt written by him, there is nothing written whether any amount was paid to the applicant, which was duly acknowledged by him. The fact relating to making of the report in the police with respect to the incident was admitted again in the cross-examination but the same was not produced in the evidence. He admitted that no case was registered by the Police. Same was the statement made by the other witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff, However, PW-2 Kunjilal and PW-3 Babloo stated that they came on the spot only when they were asked by the respondent/plaintiff. They further admitted that the applicant was the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and was having good reputation in the area. Same was the statement with respect to the father of the respondent/plaintiff. 5. They further admitted that the applicant was the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and was having good reputation in the area. Same was the statement with respect to the father of the respondent/plaintiff. 5. In rebuttal, evidence was produced by the applicant and he deposed categorically that because the respondent/plaintiff was not keeping the right records of purchase and sale, he stopped dealing with the respondent/plaintiff. When the respondent asked the applicant to sale the grain to him only, he said that because of improper working of the respondent/plaintiff in business, he was not interested in selling him the grains. It was proved by the evidence of the applicant that he was having good reputation in the society and in the area. It was further proved that no case was registered against the applicant by the Police on the complaint made by the respondent/plaintiff. 6. After assessing the evidence available on record, the trial Court reached to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, appeal was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff before the lower Appellate Court. Since the said appeal has been allowed and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is decreed, this revision is filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on account of a bar created under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to filing of second appeal in money suits of less than Rs. 25,000/- value. 7. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no cogent reason assigned by the lower Appellate Court in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court. It was categorically held by the trial Court that no evidence was available to prove the fact relating to forcefully taking back the wheat purchased by the respondent. The report lodged in the Police by the respondent/plaintiff should have been produced and should have been proved so as to indicate that the transaction has taken place on the date and the applicant has in fact sold the grain to the respondent/plaintiff. Merely because some of the interested witnesses examined by the respondent/plaintiff were stating that the money was paid to the applicant towards the sale consideration of the wheat, was not enough evidence to prove such a transaction. Merely because some of the interested witnesses examined by the respondent/plaintiff were stating that the money was paid to the applicant towards the sale consideration of the wheat, was not enough evidence to prove such a transaction. At least an acknowledgment of the same should have been obtained from the applicant. Exhibit P-l was duly considered by the learned trial Court and it was held that such a document was unreliable as it contains nothing but the writing of the respondent/plaintiff without any acknowledgment of the applicant, who was said to be recipient of the money. Similarly, the diary produced by the respondent/plaintiff was not reliable inasmuch as it was not a particular account book kept for the purposes of business transactions. It was also not proved in accordance to law. That being so, the trial Court was right in holding that the respondent/plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his case. Drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is contended that the entries of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are to be relied only if such statements are proved by sufficient evidence to charge any person with the liability. There was no evidence available on record to indicate that the diary Exhibit P-2 was maintained by the respondent/plaintiff as a book of accounts in regular course of business and, that, entry made in the same was not enough to show that the applicant has purchased any grain from the respondent/plaintiff. This being so, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are perverse and are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra it is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that this Court has limited jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere in a judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. It is contended that unless there is a substantial question of law involved, this Court would not entertain such a revision. Relying in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001(1) JLJ 401 , it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present revision and as such the same is not to be entertained. Relying in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001(1) JLJ 401 , it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present revision and as such the same is not to be entertained. Further placing reliance in the case of N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, AIR 1949 Privy Council 156, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that the scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and in exceptional circumstances, if it is found that the order of the subordinate Court is not within the jurisdiction or that the Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction available or that while exercising jurisdiction the Court has acted illegally or the order passed by the Court below is in the breach of some provisions of law or that the material irregularity has been committed by the Court below in exercising jurisdiction, the High Court would be competent to exercise its powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further placing reliance in the case of M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P.) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807 , it is contended that the Apex Court has also laid down the law in this respect and, therefore, it would not be open to this Court to look into the well reasoned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court unless it is proved that there was material irregularity committed in appreciation of the evidence. It is contended that even in the second appeal stage, re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible and, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and is to be exercised sparingly only in the given circumstances if it is found by this Court that material irregularity of jurisdiction or law is committed by the lower Court. The power is not to be exercised in all such cases where reasoned and lawful findings are recorded by the lower Courts. The power is not to be exercised in all such cases where reasoned and lawful findings are recorded by the lower Courts. However, after amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and taking away the right of second appeal provided under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure where a bar is created by section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not limited that the appellate forum or the revisional authority will look into the proceedings of the Courts below to satisfy itself whether any material irregularity in appreciating the law is committed by the Court below or not. Therefore, the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the revision is overruled. It will be quite useful to point out that in the case of N. S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar (supra) and in the case of M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P.) Ltd., New Delhi (supra) the Apex Court has not said that in any case the power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be invoked. It has to be seen only that whether any of the circumstances as enumerated in the aforesaid decisions are available to exercise that power of revision by this Court or not. The other case in which the reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent relates to second appeal, which is to be filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, it is not necessary that revisional power would be exercised only if a substantial question of law is made out. 11. Now coming to the facts relating to appreciation of evidence. Undisputedly, the claim was set by the respondent/plaintiff on an incident, which was said to have taken place on 2-7-1999. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff himself that the report was lodged in the Police. The reliance was placed by the respondent/plaintiff on two documents, one which was said to be written by the respondent/plaintiff himself for payment of Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant. However, there was nothing on the said document to show that the amount was actually paid to the applicant by the father of the respondent/plaintiff. Secondly, the diary said to be kept by the respondent/plaintiff was not an account book to be maintained for the purposes of business transactions. 6,000/- to the applicant. However, there was nothing on the said document to show that the amount was actually paid to the applicant by the father of the respondent/plaintiff. Secondly, the diary said to be kept by the respondent/plaintiff was not an account book to be maintained for the purposes of business transactions. The entry made in the said diary was irrelevant. Again the same was not acknowledged by the applicant, though in the same diary, to some transactions, acknowledgments were obtained by the respondent/plaintiff from the concerned persons. No explanation was assigned by the respondent/plaintiff in this respect. He could not explain as to how and why he could not produce the copy of the report lodged in the Police with respect to the incident, which has taken place on 2-7-1999. If such a document would have been produced, the entire story made by the respondent/plaintiff would have been treated to be proved by oral evidence. The contents of diary were also not proved by sufficient evidence independently produced. The respondent/plaintiff has either examined the persons, who were said to accompanying him or those who were closely related to him. No independent evidence was produced in this respect. The facts, as have been stated by the applicant, could not be disproved by the respondent/plaintiff even when the witnesses of the applicant were cross-examined to some extent. The status of the applicant in the society was admitted by the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff. If this evidence was appreciated by the trial Court and if it was held that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove his claim, in the considered opinion of this Court, the scope of interference was very less in an appeal. The Appellate Court while passing the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, simply said that the trial Court gravely erred in not accepting the correctness of the entry made in Exhibit P-2, the diary maintained by the respondent/plaintiff only because the same was not signed. The reason assigned by the lower Appellate Court is that the entry made in the said diary cannot be doubted only because the same are not acknowledged. Learned lower Appellate Court completely failed to see the provisions of the Evidence Act with respect to proof of documents and, therefore, committed an error of law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 12. Learned lower Appellate Court completely failed to see the provisions of the Evidence Act with respect to proof of documents and, therefore, committed an error of law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 12. One more aspect is that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the best evidence in proof of his claim, i.e. the report lodged in the Police. There was nothing suggested by him in his evidence as to how he could not produce the same before the Court at the time of trial. Even in the appellate stage, knowing fully well that only because of non-production of such material evidence the respondent was non-suited, no attempt was made to produce the said evidence at the appellate stage. The provisions are made in this respect in the Code of Civil Procedure, which could have been utilized by the respondent/plaintiff for fulfilling that requirement. The respondent/plaintiff was required to blame himself for all such infirmity and was not to be given the help from weakness of applicant, if at all any was there. However, on account of complete failure on the part of the respondent/plaintiff, decree was not to be granted in his favour by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case in which power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of trial Court is affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.