ORDER : 1. Petitioner has challenged judgment dated 26th of August, 2010, passed by Addl. District Judge, Bali, District Pali (for short, ‘learned lower appellate Court’), whereby learned lower appellate Court has reversed judgment and decree dated 14th of November, 2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bali, District Pali (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). 2. At the threshold, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of respondent-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,667/-. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal before learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court after examining evidence and other materials available on record de-novo, reversed findings of learned trial Court, and consequently decreed the suit for the aforesaid amount. The learned lower appellate Court has also allowed interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite to the respondent-plaintiff on the principal amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was outstanding against appellant. 3. On earlier occasion, matter came up before the Court and appeal was admitted framing substantial questions of law on 26th of September, 2018. However, in the changed scenario now the matter requires de-novo examination on the touchstone of revisional jurisdiction. 4. Even if this Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, which is obviously available to the petitioner, I am afraid, no interference with the impugned judgment of learned lower appellate Court is warranted. Law is trite that power of judicial review under Section 115 CPC is very much limited and the Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not expected to re-appreciate evidence. The power of the revisional Court is confined to certain parameters prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC. 5. In totality, after examining the impugned judgment of learned lower appellate Court, in my opinion, neither the learned Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested. Moreover, it is not a case, wherein the learned Court below has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. Resultantly, in the instant revision petition, no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted and same is, therefore, dismissed.