RAGHUNATH PRASAD Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application on behalf of Raghunath Prasad defendant against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated 9-1-1957 holding that the document dated 2-4-1953 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Mangilal was not a promissory note but was an agreement and could be admitted in evidence after the payment of penalty. The defendant made an application to the trial court that he wanted to file a revision application in this Court and that the document may not be admitted in evidence and it has not yet been admitted in evidence.

(2.) I am very doubtful whether a revision application against the order determining the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act can be filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case as the learned Senior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act. As to the application of Sub-section (c) of Section 115, there are series of decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council which all lay down the law that if a court has jurisdiction to decide a case and even if it decided wrongly, it cannot be said that it has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregulariy. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 Ind App 237 (PC), Balkrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar, 44 Ind App 261: (AIR 1917 PC 71), Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, 76 Ind App 67; (AIR 1949 PC 156) and Joy Chand Lal v. Kamalakslia Chaudhury, 76 Ind App 131: (AIR 1949 PC 239). In Joy Chand's case, 76 Ind App 131: (AIR 1949 PC 239) it was pointed out that an error in decision of the subordinate court does not by itself involve that the subordinate court had acted illegally Or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under Sub-section (c) of Section US but if as a result of such error in the decision the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vesed a case for revision under Sub-section (a) or sub-section(b) may arise. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also considered Section 115 C. P. C. in the case of Keshardeo v. Radha Kissen. 1953 SCR 136: (AIR 1953 SC 23) and after citing the Privy Council cases, referred to the case of Nagpur High Court in the case of Narayan Sonaji v. Sheshrao Vithoba, ILR (1948) Nag 16: (AIR 1948 Nag 258) (FB), wherein it was said that the words 'illegally' and 'material irregularity' do not cover either errors of fact or law. Their Lordships further observed as follow: "They do not refer to the decision arrived at but to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with."

(3.) The above authorities in my humble opinion clearly lay down the limits under which Section 115 C. P. C. can be applied. As pointed out in Balakrishna Udayar's rase, 44 Ind App 261: (AIR 1917 PC 71) this section is not directed against the conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. But there is an authority of this Court in the case of Brijraj Sharan v. Sahu Raghunandan, ILR (1955) 5 Raf 367: ((S) AIR 1955 Raj 85) in which such a revision application was entertained and accepted. I do not think it is open to me sitting as a single Judge to take a contrary view. I also do not think that I should refer the matter to a larger bench as in my view the revision application fails on merits.