Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff for the revision of an order of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur city rejecting the plaintiff's application for amending an issue and correctly placing the burden of proof of some issues on the parties. The plaintiff's suit is for possession on the basis of a mortgage deed and in the alternative for the recovery of mortgage money. The defendant is a woman, who alleges herself to be a Parhanashin woman. The mortgage deed has not been admitted by the defendant and the para in the plaint dealing with the execution of the mortgage deed has not been clearly admitted. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issue which is material for the purposes of this revision. THIS is issue No. 2 and reads as follows: - "whether the mortgage deed dated 21st August, 1948 was got executed by the defendant after payment of Rs. 3ooo/-in two instalments and Rs. 4499/- after the payment of Rs. 3000/- and whether the defendant had any right to make the mortgage.
(2.) THE plaintiff put an application that the said issue was not correctly framed and that the issue be correctly framed and the burden which has been placed upon the plaintiff in this issue be not placed upon him but be placed upon the defendant. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties made an order rejecting the application. Against this order, the plaintiff has come in revision to this court. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the defendant Mst. Lachma had admitted that she received Rs. 4499/- at the time of the registration of the deed, but it was only for the purpose of show and the sum was returned immediately after to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant, admitted the receipt of Rs. 4499/- and it was for her to prove its return to the plaintiff. The burden should, therefore, have been placed upon the defendant and not upon the plaintiff. It was also argued that the defendant impliedly admitted the execution of the mortgage deed also. On behalf of the opposite party an objection has been taken that no revision lies under the circumstances of the case. It has been argued that the defendant is a Pardanashin woman and that the plaintiff is in her active confidence, therefore mere admission of her signature on the mortgage deed or of its presenting for registration, does not amount to an admission of the proper execution of the deed. The burden was, therefore, rightly placed upon the plaintiff and the issue was correctly framed, but even if the issue was not correctly framed and burden was not rightly allocated, it was only a mistake of law and revision does not lie on this ground. A number of authorities have been cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, but I shall cite only four, i. e. Harji vs. Hastisingh (1951 Rajasthan Law Weekly, P. 1), Manickavachakam Chettiar vs. Official Receiver, E. Tanjore, Nagapatan. (A. I. R. 1939 Madras P. 733), N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another vs. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (A. I. R. 1949 P. C, P. 156) and Jahangir Khan Pathan vs. the Government of Rajasthan' (1950 Rajasthan Law Weekly P. 97 ). In the ruling of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1951 Law Weekly P. 1 it was held by Datta J. that it will be after the final decision of the case that the wrong allocation of burden of proof will afford a good ground for the interference of High Court in revision. In the Madras ruling it was held that it can never be said that High Court should interfere with the orders of the lower courts in revision merely because the decision is wrong. It is not any part of the legitimate duties of the High Court to help the lower court to frame issues. They alone have the jurisdiction to frame issues in the suits which come before them for trial and they have jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The fact that question which way the burden of proof is to be thrown is wrongly decided is not a ground for interference in revision. In the Privy Council case, it has been said that sec. 115 (c) does not authorise the High Court to interfere and correct the gross and palpable errors of subordinate courts. It can be applied only if one or more of the three conditions given in sec. 115 is fulfilled. In the ruling of Rajasthan High Court last mentioned it was held by a Division Bench that the mere fact that the order of the lower court was not legally correct would not entitle the High Court to interfere in revision. The learned counsel for the opposite party does not contend that this court could interfere with the order of the subordinate courts simply on the ground that it is not legally correct. He has, however, argued that the framing of a wrong issue and the wrong allocation of burden of proof was a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The order of the lower court in such matters can, therefore, be corrected in revision. A ruling of another Judge of Rajasthan High Court, Gupta J. , in Shankarlal vs. Deenanath (1950 Rajasthan Law Weekly P. 249,) has been relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his argument. It was decided by the learned Judge that a wrong allocation of burden of proof would be a material irregularity and would justify interference, in revision. The learned Judge has cited certain other rulings of different High Courts out of which a ruling reported in Shri Tripura Sundri Cotton press Co. Ltd. vs. Addep-alli Venkata Gurunadha Ramaseshayya (A. I. R. 1935 Madras P. 784) is worth mentioning. It was held by Mockett J. that where the burden of proof is definitely wrongly placed and the matter is of considerable importance to companies and a local precedent might possibly be caused the High Court can interfere in revision. Apart from the rulings of other High Courts, there is, thus a conflict of opinion between the views of the two learned Judges of Rajasthan High Court itself. If the circumstances in the present case were the same as in these two cases, I would have felt constrained to refer this case for a decision by a Division Bench. On careful consideration of the case, however, I find that this is not a case in which it can be said definitely that the issue has been wrongly framed or that the burden has been definitely wrongly allocated. In the Madras case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant there was a case of placing the burden of proof definitely wrongly. I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether the plaintiff is a Parda Nashin lady or the defendant is in her active confidence because this might embarrass the trial of the suit in the lower court. Revision against interlocutory orders is often a very hazardous business, and some times higher courts might make observations which might embarrass the lower courts in the decision of the case on merits. This is why such revisions are mostly discouraged and Allahabad High Court and Chief Court have been very strict it this matter. However, looking to the view that Rajasthan High Court has been holding, I am not prepared to say that no revision should lie against inter locutory orders in any circumstances, but in a case where it cannot be said that the order by the lower court is so definitely wrong that it can be said that it has acted illegally or committed any material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction, it would not be proper for a revisional court to interfere. The present case is a case in which it cannot be said that the order about the allocation of burden or the framing of issues is so definitely wrong as to induce me to hold that the lower court has committed any illegality or material irregulariry in the exercise of its jurisdiction. I do not feel inclined to interfere in revision. The application for revision is dismissed. The costs shall abide the result of the suit in the lower courts. . ;