ARJUN RAM Vs. SMT. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dated 7.10.1997, learned trial Judge while deciding issue No. 5 as preliminary issue held that the document in question was a receipt under Sec. 2(23) of the Stamp Act and not a pronote and held it to be admissible in evidence as such. Aggrieved by this order the defendant petitioner submitted this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

(3.) It was submitted by counsel for respondent that no revision could be filed against impugned order and reliance was placed on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Harakchand Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1970 RLW 320 , wherein relying on a Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas Vs. Shah Bhogilal Nathalal, AIR 1968 Gujarat 236 , it was held that the error of law by the subordinate Court in deciding whether a document was a promissory note within the meaning of Sec. 2(22) of the Stamp Act or not, was not concerned with the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court and, therefore, none of the three clauses of Sec. 115 Civil Procedure Code. will be attracted to the case. It was held that no revision lies against such an order and the revision was dismissed with costs. As against this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner cited as Kundan Mal Vs. Nand Kishore and etc., AIR 1994 Rajasthan 1 , wherein scope of Sec. 115 Civil Procedure Code. has been considered and held that such a revision was maintainable. This is a Single Bench judgment. But I am bound by Full Bench Judgment. The case is squarely covered by this Full Bench judgment.