HARAKCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit filed by Harakchand and others-plaintiffs the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalore refused to admit in evidence a document produced by the plaintiffs on the ground that the document was not registered. The plaintiffs have filed a revision application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the trial court. This revision application was placed for hearing before one of us sitting as a single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised that the order passed by the trial court cannot be revised under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge referred the case to the Division Bench after noticing the conflict of judicial opinion in this respect. The Division Bench has referred the matter to the Full Bench. IN this way this case has come before us.

(2.) SEC. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows: "115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. "

(3.) IN this case it has been argued before us that by wrongly construing a document, the trial court held that it was admissible in evidence, while on a proper construction of document, it was inadmissible in evidence because of the provisions of the Registration Act and that the trial court thus proceeded to incorporate on record inadmissible evidence which would eventually be taken in consideration while finally deciding the case. Whether a particular evidence was admissible according to law or not is a question of law which the trial court was entitled to decide and if any error has been committed in deciding that question, it cannot be said that such error was in any way an error in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction.