ORDER : 1. The present civil revision petition, instituted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-defendants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2004, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bali in Civil Suit No. 85/98, came to be affirmed. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit on 13.07.1987 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,016.21, alleging that land bearing Khasra No. 77 situated at Chamudairy Mertivan belonged to certain Khatedars who had executed a general power of attorney in his favour on 22.06.1984. It was averred that when the plaintiff visited the field on 22.08.1986 for sowing operations, the defendant-petitioners, who were allegedly attempting to trespass upon the land, damaged his tractor on 28.08.1986 and manhandled him, compelling him to lodge a criminal report. The defendants resisted the suit, asserting that they were in lawful possession of the land pursuant to an agreement dated 18.07.1983 executed by the same Khatedars, and that they had already instituted a suit for specific performance, which eventually stood decreed in their favour on 31.08.1994, recognising their possession since July 1983. They further contended that the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff had been cancelled on 07.05.1986, rendering his acts of August 1986 wholly unauthorised, and that the suit itself suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial court, after framing issues and appreciating oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit partly, awarding Rs. 16,016.31 with interest. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate court, affirming the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have approached this Court by way of the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. After perusing the material, this Court is of the view that the respondent–Shri Ramlal, as plaintiff, instituted a suit seeking damages for the loss caused to his Massey Ferguson tractor. The foundational averment in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the tractor and was cultivating agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 77, Rakba 177 Bigha, under a valid authority dated 22.06.1984. The foundational averment in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the tractor and was cultivating agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 77, Rakba 177 Bigha, under a valid authority dated 22.06.1984. It is alleged that in the year 1986, during the sowing of bajra, the defendants forcibly trespassed into the field with the intent to take unlawful possession. In the course of the altercation, injuries were caused and the tractor was deliberately damaged. 4.1 An FIR came to be registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 447, 427 and 323 IPC . Upon investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for causing injuries and mischief. The tractor was seized and mechanically examined. The plaintiff further placed the vehicle for inspection before one mechanic, Chena Ram, who assessed the damage at Rs. 28,000/-. The detailed bills and supporting documents were produced along with the plaint. The suit was thus premised on the assertion that the defendants intentionally caused damage to the tractor, rendering them liable to compensate not only the repair cost but also the loss suffered during the period the tractor remained non-functional. 4.2 The defendants, in their written statement, raised a plea that the plaintiff had no valid possession over the land. They asserted possession on the basis of an agreement to sell and apprised the Court that they had instituted a suit for specific performance before the District Court, Sirohi in the year 1984. Their defence, however, was largely confined to asserting proprietary rights and possession over the agricultural land and did not substantially traverse the core allegation namely, the damage caused to the tractor. They denied the assault, the injuries, and the allegation of mischief. 5. The trial court framed nine issues and one issue on relief. The plaintiff examined 7 witnesses and produced 45 documents. The defendants examined 3 witnesses and tendered about a dozen documents. For the sake of ready reference, the issues as framed by the learned trial court are set out hereinbelow, rendered in their translated form from Hindi to English:- (I) Whether tractor bearing registration No. RRQ-1512 is owned by the plaintiff? (II) Whether agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 77 admeasuring 177 Bigha was given to the plaintiff for cultivation by the khatedars, Inder Singh, Murari Lal and others and whether the plaintiff was in occupation and cultivating the said land on the relevant date? (II) Whether agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 77 admeasuring 177 Bigha was given to the plaintiff for cultivation by the khatedars, Inder Singh, Murari Lal and others and whether the plaintiff was in occupation and cultivating the said land on the relevant date? (III) Whether on 22.08.1986, when the plaintiff’s sons Hariram, Bhimaram and Mohanlal were sowing the millet crop on the disputed land, the defendants unlawfully encroached upon the said land and caused damage to tractor No. RRQ-1512? (IV) Whether the plaintiff incurred an expenditure of Rs. 16,016.21 towards the repairing of the aforesaid tractor? (V) Whether the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 7,000/- on account of deprivation from use of the tractor from 23.06.1986 to 31.10.1986, calculated @ Rs. 100/- per day? (VI) Whether United India Insurance Company is a necessary party to the present suit? (VII) Whether the tenants of the disputed land are necessary parties to the present suit? (VIII) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of estoppel for the reasons stated in para (ii) of the defendants’ reply? (IX) Whether the defendants are entitled to special damages of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff? (X) Relief. 6. Upon an attentive consideration of all the issues framed, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court committed no error in their adjudication. This Court has undertaken a discussion on the aforesaid issues hereinbelow:- 6.1 Issue No. 1, pertaining to the ownership of the tractor, was decided in favour of the plaintiff, a fact that was never controverted. 6.2 Issues No. 2 and 3 were thoroughly and meticulously examined by the learned Civil Judge. Upon a detailed appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, it was held that the tractor indeed sustained damage and such damage was caused by the defendants. The discussion of evidence is elaborate and reasoned. Although the question of possession over the agricultural land was adverted to, this Court notes that such a determination was not strictly necessary for adjudicating a suit confined to damages to movable property. 6.3 Issue No. 4 related to the expenditure incurred on repairing the tractor. Sufficient oral and documentary evidence was adduced, and the defendants were unable to rebut or create any dent in the plaintiff’s case. The finding calls for no interference. 6.4 Issue No. 5 concerned the alleged deprivation of use of the tractor. 6.3 Issue No. 4 related to the expenditure incurred on repairing the tractor. Sufficient oral and documentary evidence was adduced, and the defendants were unable to rebut or create any dent in the plaintiff’s case. The finding calls for no interference. 6.4 Issue No. 5 concerned the alleged deprivation of use of the tractor. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden, and the issue was rightly decided against him. 6.5 Issues No. 6 and 7 pertained to the alleged non-joinder of the insurance company and khatedar tenants as necessary parties. As no evidence was led to substantiate these pleas, and as the subject matter of the suit was not relatable to the rights of these entities, the learned trial Judge committed no error in rejecting these objections. 6.6 Issue No. 8 is related to estoppel. No evidence or legal foundation was placed to sustain such a plea. There is no previous litigation to attract the bar of estoppel, and the finding warrants affirmation. 6.7 Issue No. 9 related to the claim of special costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the defendants. In view of Issues 1 to 4 having been decided in favour of the plaintiff, the rejection of this claim is unexceptionable. 7. The suit came to be decreed for Rs. 16,016.31 with interest @ 6% p.a. The learned trial court has dealt with the entire evidence with commendable clarity. The appellate court, upon re-appreciation of every factual and legal contention, found no infirmity warranting interference and dismissed the appeal. 8. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is extraordinarily narrow and is to be exercised with great restraint. This Court may interfere only where the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with manifest illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction. Findings of fact, howsoever imperfect, are ordinarily beyond revisional scrutiny unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or such that no reasonable judicial mind could reach. Beyond these limited confines, the revisional court must resist the temptation to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. The revisional jurisdiction is narrow and circumscribed particularly when the decreetal amount is below Rs. 25,000/-. Beyond these limited confines, the revisional court must resist the temptation to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. The revisional jurisdiction is narrow and circumscribed particularly when the decreetal amount is below Rs. 25,000/-. This Court finds no challenge to the competence of the Civil Judge, no objection to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, and no demonstration of any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the judgments of the courts below. 9. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on a conscientious appraisal of the evidence. The quantification of damages is founded upon verified bills, mechanical inspection, and unshaken oral testimony. Nothing has been shown to persuade this Court to hold that the findings suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity so as to invite revisional interference. In the considered view of this Court, the judgments of the courts below do not call for any indulgence. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.