JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's revision against the order of learned Distt. Judge, Pali dt. 6. 4. 1991 whereby he has dismissed the application and overruled the objection of the petitioner for taking document dt. 5. 9. 80 on record.
(2.) THIS case was to be disposed of along with civil revision no. 519/91 Gulam Rasool Vs. Mariyam filed against the order dt. 27. 9. 89, as per order dt. 24. 7. 91, but at the time of hearing of that revision, the counsel staled that it may be kept after judgment in civil revision no. 519/91 as the result of this revision depends upon that judgment. S. B. C. Revision No. 519/91 decided on 17. 2. 92, THIS case was kept for admission on 24. 2. 92 and thereafter on 6. 3. 92 but the case could not be heard. On 2. 4. 92, learned counsel for the petitioner staled that he has moved a review petition of the order dt. 17. 2. 92 passed in civil revision no. 519/91, therefore, this case be heard along with review petition and 9. 4. 92 was fixed. On 9. 4. 1992, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case may be heard alone and review may be considered on its own turn. As agreed by both the parties, this case is finally heard today. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. I need not narrate the facts of the case as the same have been mentioned in detail in S. B. C. Revision No. 519/91 decided on 17. 2. 92 arising out of the same suit no. 13/73. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has erred in rejecting the objection against accepting of the document dt. 5. 9. 1980 vide order dt. 6. 4. 91 as the same is not sufficiently stamped as per market value of the property. On the other hand Mr. Samdariya has submitted that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings which are pending since 25. 9. 72. He has also submitted that this objection has already been considered and rejected by the learned lower court vide its earlier order dt. 6. 10. 90. He has further submitted that there is no jurisdictional error in the order dt. 6. 4. 91. The document dt. 5. 9. 80 is a registered one. A similar objection was raised at the time of tendering document in evidence. The same was rejected on 6. 10. 90. Earlier the learned trial court while taking the document as an agreement in evidence vide its order dt. 23. 1. 84 observed that its effect on the parties cannot be seen at this stage and will be seen at the appropriate stage and thereafter also dismissed the review on 28. 4. 84. Admittedly order dt. 6. 10. 90 has not been challenged. The explanation put forward by the counsel for the petitioner that it was not in his knowledge as nothing revealed from the ordersheet. This argument is not tenable and his attendance is very much there in the order it. 6. 10. 90 and, therefore, the same has become final and cannot be challenged now in this revision. That apart, revision against construction and admissibility of a document is not maintainable. In view of this, there is no jurisdictional error and the impugned order calls for no interference. In the result, this revision has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. . ;