KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 1. 12. 1994, passed by A. D. J. No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in civil suit No. 90/86, whereby the application of the petitioner field under section 151 C. P. C was rejected.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge. The execution of the documents dated 1. 10. 1971 and 9. 1. 1984 was admitted by the plaintiff petitioner in his statement before court. Lateron the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under section 151 C. P. C. stating therein that these documents were inadmissible in evidence as the same were neither registered nor properly stamped. This application was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 1. 12. 1994. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority Harak Chand vs. State of Raj. (1), is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said judgment was rendered by the Full Bench of this court under the old Civil Procedure Code and after amendment in C. P. C. vide Act No. 104 of 1976, jurisdiction of the court under section 115 C. P. C. has been enlarged. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in Bharosilal and Another vs. Mool Chand (2), and some other cases. It is correct that explanation to section 115 in C. P. C. was added vide Act No. 104 of 1976. After the amendment expression "any case which has been decides" includes any order made in the course of a suit or any other proceedings. Only to this extent the scope of revision has been enlarged. But there is no amendment in sub-section (l) of section 115 C. P. C. In Harak Chand's case (supra) while interpreting section 115 (1) (C) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Full Bench of this court held that if the lower court comes to the conclusion that a document is admissible or inadmissible, it can not be said that the court had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present case the trial court has admitted the document in evidence, as execution of the same was not denied by the plaintiff-petitioner. In my opinion, the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under section 115 C. P. C. There is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. .;