- (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, II, Jaipur dated 9th January, 1961, by which he has rejected the appeal preferred against the interlocutory order of the Assistant Collector, Behror, dated 7th June, 1960 disallowing the production of certain documents in a suit under Sec. 169 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
(2.) AN important point of law is involved for determination in this case whether a revision against such an order lies or not. Admittedly, a second appeal will lie against the judgment in the suit. No revision can, therefore, lie unless it is established that it would not be possible to question this interlocutory order in terms of S. 105 of the Civil Procedure Code in the course of the second appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that it would not be possible to question this interlocutory order as such. He relies in support of this contention on 1869 Privy Council Cases, page 82 - Goshain Tota Ram Vs. Rajah Rickmuner Bullub. Now, under Sec. 105 of the Civil Procedure Code any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of the case may be setforth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. Such an error, defect or irregularity is to be one in law or procedure. It should also be such as has affected the decision of the case on the merits. No direct authority is available to show whether the rejection or admission of certain documents in evidence will amount to an error, defect or irregularity affecting the decision of the case on merits. But certainly the presence or absence of a document will induce a court to alter its decision. There is an observation in 1925 Calcutta 711- Nissi Kanta Sarkar Vs. Umarlal Sarkar (page 713) by Suhrawardy, J. , by way of instance that "an order refusing to admit a document which is in law admissible is an order which will influence the decision of the courts on merits and will be a ground which can be taken in appeal against the final decree in in the suit". As against it the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants referred to above does not deal with the point at issue in the present case. It only decides that the irregularity or impropriety of the admission of a documentary evidence will not be interfered with by the Privy Council in appeals against the concurrent decisions of the learned lower courts. The point raised in that case was that documentary evidence admitted was contrary to the new provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the same having been admitted even when it was not produced when the plaint was presented. Obviously this is not the point at issue in the present case. We, therefore, hold that the revision does not lie because the point that certain documents were wrongly rejected from having been taken in evidence can always be agitated in second appeal under Sec. 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision is, therefore, rejected accordingly. .;