HABIB DHAR Vs. ZOONA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against an order of the Judge Small Causes Srinagar dated 25th Sep. 1963 whereby he has held a certain document dated 15th January 1961 as, inadmissible in evidence because it was not registered. This revision is under S., 24 of the Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that this power by the High Court of entertaining applications in revision under S. 24 of the Small Cause Courts Act should, not be abused and should be used to advance the cause of justice. And it has generally not been J the practice of the High Court to interfere when there are no substantial merits in the applicants case. It interferes to remedy injustice. It is slow to interfere when substantial justice has been done by the subordinate courts, though technically the plaintiff or the defendant may have a legitimate ground of attach or defence. (See Poona) City Municipality V, Ramji, 21 Bom. 250. There are numerous other authorities on the point.In the present case I feel that much of the defence of the defendant may depend upon the admissibility of the document in question. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued before me that he has no grievance against the order of the trial court in rejecting this document so far as it creates or extinguishes any right in immovable property He says he wanted to use this document to prove the admission of the executant to have received money which was a clear defence to the plaintiffs suit. In these circumstaces I think I should entertain this revision and I do entertain it.

(3.) ON the merits of the case I agree with the trial court as has been conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant that this document requires registration, so far as the creation or extinction of any right in immovable property is concerned, I cannot at this stage exactly say what the defendant wants to prove from this document, notwithstanding the statement of his learned counsel that he wants only to prove the admission of the parties of having received Rs. 1500/ - in total satisfaction of their claim. It would, therefore, be premature for me to adjudicate upon this point finally here. The law, however, is very well settled that if a document is presented in a court and is unregistered, some portions of it may be admissible in evidence notwithstanding its being not registered and some other portions of the same may be completely inadmissible. On that there is no dearth of authority. For instance AIR 1955 J & K 31 is an authority on that point.