JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners (defendants) have preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional District judge No. 2, Alwar (the first appellate Court), whereby the learned first appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judged (Junior Division) Thanagaji, Alwar (learned trial Court) is set aside to the extent it has awarded interest on the decretal amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner (plaintiff) laid a civil suit for damages against the present petitioners and one Ram Kalyan on account of the fact that houses of the rival parties are situated adjacent and due to dilapidated condition of the house of the defendants, its wall has collapsed which has resulted in damage of one of the rooms of the house of the plaintiff. Due to collapse of wall, the roof of the room collapsed and it has resulted into injuries to the children of the plaintiff. The non-petitioner has quantified the damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- only. The suit was contested by the petitioners (defendants) and ultimately the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.2004 partly decreed the suit and awarded damages for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- only. While passing the judgment and decree, the learned trial Court has also awarded interest on the decretal amount. 2. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court and on behalf of the respondent cross-objections were submitted. 3. The learned first appellate Court after hearing the arguments on the appeal as well as cross-objections, dismissed the cross-objections filed by the non- petitioner (plaintiff). While deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the learned first appellate Court has affirmed the decree passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of the amount of damages. However, the learned first appellate Court has set aside the interest part of the decree which was passed by the learned Court below. 4. Appalled by the impugned judgment and decree, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 5. However, the learned first appellate Court has set aside the interest part of the decree which was passed by the learned Court below. 4. Appalled by the impugned judgment and decree, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 5. There is no quarrel in the legal position that against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the appropriate remedy to a litigant is second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. However, in the instant case, realising the legal embargo as envisaged under Section 102 C.P.C., the petitioners (defendants) have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. According to Section 102 of C.P.C., no second appeal is entertain able when the decretal amount is less than Rs. 25,000/-. Relevant provisions of Section 102 C.P.C., is reproduced as under: 102. No second appeal in certain cases.-No second appeal shall lie form any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. 6. Thus, the endeavour of the petitioner is to call upon this Court to re- appreciate the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below and to interfere with the said findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. When the legislature, in its wisdom, has put an embargo that no second appeal is entertain able, if the decretal amount is less than Rs. 25,000/-, obviously, the intention of the legislature was to discourage such unscrupulous litigations. Simply because the remedy of second appeal is not available to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be allowed to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Section 115 C.P.C. Even otherwise, after examining the revision on merits, in my considered' opinion, the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. In totality of the circumstances, I am fully convinced that the impugned judgment and decree has not occasioned failure of justice. One more redeeming fact is that the decretal amount is a meager sum of Rs. 12,000/- only and on that count also it is not desirable to exercise revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. 8. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The pies are left to bear their own costs. Revision Dismissed. *******