P KARUNAKARAN Vs. V M PONNUSWAMY ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the ruling given by the Rent Controller, Villupuram, on the question whether an un-registered document can be received in evidence. Having regard to the view expressed by me that it is not desirable to admit civil revision petitions against the trial Court's ruling allowing or disallowing a particular piece of evidence in view of the fact that the error, if any committed by the trial Court in admitting a particular piece of evidence or declining to admit such a piece of evidence, could be rectified in the appellate forum, Mr. R. S. Venkatachari the learned counsel for the petitioner dreamy attention to three decisions. Ore of them is Mt Hubraji v. Deputy Commissioner, Fyrabad1 where the learned Judge has observed thus: "A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that this revision petitioner is not maintainable as the learned District Judge in passing the order in question did rot act as a Court or a Civil Court subordinate to this Court. A reference has been made in support of this contention to Manavala Goundan v. Kumarappo Reddy2 Naganna Nayudu v. Pattaohiramayya3 and Deputy Commissioner, Partapgar v. Ram Harekh.4 In the two Madras cases, the order in question was one passed by the District Registrar acting under the Registration Act. These cases have, therefore, no relevancy to the present case. The Oudh case does not deal with this point at all. All that was held in that case was that when an application under section 61 is made by the Collector to the Revision Court, no notice to the person liable is required to be issued. Although learned counsel for the appellant complained that the order was passed by the learned District Judge behind his back and without any notice to him, he has not urged that the older on that account is void." After making this observation, the learned Judge his held that the decision of the learned District Judge in that case was correct and must be upheld.

(2.) THAT is not a case where a revision petition has been admitted against a trial Court's ruling on the question of admissibility or otherwise of any piece of evidence.

(3.) I am of the opinion that this decision does not apply to the facts of the present case where the ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the document has been given by the Rent Controller not "on any preliminary issue or point framed by him which would have the effect of completely disposing of the matter before him one way or the other. I am of the opinion that no progress can be made in the trial Court if civil revision petitions are admitted against the ruling given by the trial Court on the admissiblity or otherwise of a particular piece of evidence, as the trial Court may have in numerable occasions to allow or disallow any particular piece of evidence during the trial of a suit or other proceeding. The mistake if any committed by the trial Court in the admissibility or otherwise of a particular piece of evidence can be rectified by moving the appellate Court in an appeal against the order or decree which may be ultimately passed by the Trial Court after taking into consideration or declining to take into consideration the particular piece of evidence. The C.R.P. is therefore dsimissed. Petition dismissed.