BHACHIBAI ALIAS KUNVERBAI WIDOW OF SHAH THAKERSHI NENSHI Vs. SHA VIRJI DEVJI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BHACHIBAI ALIAS KUNVERBAI WIDOW OF SHAH THAKERSHI NENSHI,SHA VIRJI DEVJI
SHA VIRJI DEVJI,BHACHIBAI ALIAS KUNVERBAI WIDOW OF SHAH THAKERSHI NENSHI
Click here to view full judgement.
V.B. Raju, J. -
(1.) This revision application arises in the following circumstances:-- A particular document was admitted in evidence by the trial Court, and the contention in revision is that the trial Judge was wrong in admitting the document in evidence and that in holding that the document was admissible in evidence the learned Judge has misconstrued the document as a partition and not as a release.
(2.) Where the Court admits a document or refuses to admit it in evidence, that matter cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115, C. P. Code. During the course of examination of witnesses, a Court has to give various rulings on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and answers given. There cannot be a revision against every decision of the Judge allowing the questions to be put cr not allowing certain question to be put. When the Court allows a question to be put or reuses the question to be put, that would not amount to deciding a case. Similarly, when the Court allows a document to be admitted in evidence or the Court refuses to allow it, that does not amount to deciding a case, but it amounts to deciding a question regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. Therefore, when the Court decides questions under the Evidence Act, it is not deciding a case, and therefore its decision cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115, C. P. Code. The same view has been taken by Mudholkar, j. (as he then was) in Babulal v. Jugalkishor, AIR 1954 Nag 254.
(3.) I, therefore, hold that this revision application does not lie and dismiss it. Ho order as to costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.