LALLUBHAI VIRCHAND Vs. RATILAL BHIKHABHAI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The facts out of which this revision application arises can be briefly stated thus. In a suit filed by the petitioner he produced a document at item No. 1 in the list Ex. 3. As provided in Order 13 Rule 3 C. P. Code this instrument was rejected as inadmissible in evidence by Civil Judge Junior Division Navsari who held that the document was an instrument of partition and not being stamped it was inadmissible in evidence. He therefore rejected the document as inadmissible and ordered that it cannot be exhibited.
(2.) In revision it is contended that the learned Judge in passing this order has committed a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and this order is challenged in revision. The learned counsel for the opponents raise an objection and contend that matters relating to the admissibility of evidence cannot be the subject matter of revision
(3.) Before the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115 C.P.Code there must be a case decided and the subordinate Court appear to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The first two clauses are not important in this case. The only important question is whether there is a case decided and whether the subordinate Court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.