LAWS(MPH)-2004-3-10

JEEVANLAL JAIN Vs. KHATIJA BAI

Decided On March 09, 2004
JEEVANLAL JAIN Appellant
V/S
KHATIJA BAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the plaintiff, against an interim order, dated 30. 6. 2000 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1998. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under Section 115 of C. P. Code i. e. prior to amendment in the C. P. C. which was brought into effect from 1. 7. 2002.

(2.) HEARD Mr. M. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Phaye, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE short but legal question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether learned trial Judge was justified in holding that the document in question (Exhibit P-2) is and bond and not a promissory note? In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether Exhibit P-2 can be held to be a bond or a promissory note on its true construction? It is this finding, recorded by the learned trial Judge holding the document to be a bond which is assailed by the plaintiff in this writ. To decide this question, it is really not necessary to take note of several other facts which are involved in the suit.