RAWAT HARI SINGH Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated July 16, 1971, dismissing the petitioner's application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances leading to the present appeal are somewhat unusual and deserve recall for appreciating the contentions raised before us. Petitioner instituted a civil suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,750/- before the District Judge Bhilwara. The basis of the suit was a document which the petitioner chose to call a 'chitti' but we prefer to call it "the document". The defendants objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that it was not duly stamped. An issue was struck on this point and the learned District Judge relying on a decision of this Court. Chauthmal vs. State of Rajasthan (l) held that the document was inadmissible. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and preferred on application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to this court which was dismissed by Chhangani J. by his order dated February 16, 1971, on the ground that a revision application was not maintainable in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court. The petitioner then turned his attention to Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and presented a petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the judgement of the learned District Judge deciding issue No. 8 on 15-3-1969 was erroneous and should be quashed in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner failed to persuade the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the petition.

(2.) MR. S. N. Bhargava appearing in support of the appeal has argued that this Court has in Madhusudhan vs. Shyamdas (2) and Kapoorchand Sanghi vs. Narainlal (3) had interfered in the exercise of powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution arid that the principles laid down in Surendranath vs. Stephen Court Ltd. (4) & State of Gujarat vs. Vakhatsinghji (5) amply justify the exercise of that power. He also invited our attention to Ramchander vs. Kedar Nath (6) & Josephy Santa vs. Ambico Industries (7 ).