Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS revision application has been filed by the plaintiff in a redemption suit against the order of the Munsif Dholpur who has rejected the application of the plaintiff for production of certain documents on the ground of its being unregistered, which was inadmissible in evidence.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the lower court was wrong in holding that the documents required registration. Further he has argued that in no case the document was admissible under the proviso of sec. 49 of the Registration Act as it was being filed as evidence of a collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The learned counsel for the opposite party has taken a preliminary objection that no revision lies in the present case. He has also argued that the order of the lower court that the document required registration and in the absence of registration it cannot be admitted into evidence is quite correct. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. Under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a revision lies when the subordinate court fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or exercises jurisdiction not vested therein or commits illegality to material ir-regularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the lower court either exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in it. All that has been contended is that the lower court committed illegality in not admitting the document.) The learned counsel for the opposite parties has referred to a ruling of a Division Bench of Oudh Chief Court in Baghunandan vs. Raghu-bar Singh (A. I. R. 1933 Oudh Page 345) in which it was held that an application under sec. 115 to revise the order of refusal to receive documentary evidence by the lower court does not lie as it cannot be said that the lower court committed any illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction which is vested by law. I am in agreement with this ruling of the Oudh Chief Court. The lower court has considered the legal arguments and has come to the conclusion that the document cannot be admitted into evidence without registration. It cannot be said that the lower court committed any illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The applicant can very well raise this point in the appeal which might have to be preferred against any decree that might be passed by the lower court. Application for revision is dismissed with costs to the opposite party. .;