ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Senior Civil judge, Bangalore (SCCH18) in S.C.1624/2012. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in providing services in the field of banking and financial services. In this regard, the petitioner raised invoice for a sum of Rs.45,000/- when the respondent-company approached the petitioner for obtaining services relating to subsidy. The respondent has paid a sum of Rs.22,500/- as advance towards service charges and agreed to pay the balance soon after the subsidy is credited to his Bank account. It transpires that the petitioner demanded for payment of balance amount of service charges amounting to Rs.22,500/-. When the respondent did not respond to the same, the petitioner approached the Court below seeking for recovery of the amount due in a sum of Rs.22,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. The trial Court framed five issues and after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in revision petition. 3. Sri. Swamy Shiva Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Court below erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner has not proved the transaction though issue No.1 as regards defendant availing the services of the plaintiff held in the affirmative. The court below rejected the claim of the petitioner only on surmises and conjunctures without there being any evidence let in by the defendant. The learned Trial Judge misdirected herself in dismissing the Suit. 4. Per contra, Sri. M.K. Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant justifying the impugned Judgment and decree contends that a defence was taken in the written statement that the petitioner/plaintiff has not completed the job entrusted to him, hence, the petitioner/plaintiff was not entitled for any balance amount of Rs.22,500/- towards service charges as alleged. The petitioner/plaintiff has not placed on record any document to establish the factum that subsidy was deposited to the defendant’s account, which was the condition precedent for the payment of balance amount of Rs.22,500/-. Considering these aspects, the trial court rightly dismissed the Suit which do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. The petitioner/plaintiff has not placed on record any document to establish the factum that subsidy was deposited to the defendant’s account, which was the condition precedent for the payment of balance amount of Rs.22,500/-. Considering these aspects, the trial court rightly dismissed the Suit which do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the balance of Rs.22,500/- in terms of the invoice allegedly executed between the parties, marked as Ex.P1 ? 6. Ex.P1 is the invoice which discloses that the plaintiff has rendered services to the defendant and service fees for claim of subsidy to Rs.15 lakhs was fixed at 3% amounting to Rs.45,000/-. A sum of Rs.22,500/- vide cheque No. 646103 was paid in advance, further it was further agreed between the parties that the defendant shall pay balance amount of Rs.22,500/- payable after subsidy is credited by the Bank. It is the case of the respondent-defendant that the petitioner has not executed work as agreed in full. Hence, there was no liability on his part to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.22,500/-. Even assuming that the respondent has agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.22,500/-, which is subject to receipt of subsidy by the defendant, the same is not proved. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the entire subsidy amount was received by the defendant. 7. In the absence of material placed to substantiate that the entire subsidy amount was deposited to the Account of the defendant, the claim of the petitioner placing reliance on Ex.P1 is not worthy of acceptance. These aspects were extensively considered by the trial Judge and rejected the Suit. 8. No ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the well reasoned impugned Judgment and order. The petition stands dismissed.