Anoop Chand JaIn Vs. Praveen Chand JaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 115--revision--execution of document not denied--document, admitted in evidence--held, trial court committed no jurisdictional error;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 cpc;(b) words & phrases - expression 'any case which as been decided' in cpc--meaning of;after the amendment expression any case which has been decide ' 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 (1) of section 115 cpc;revision dismissed - r.s. 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 of 1986, whereby the application of the petitioner filed under section 151 cpc was rejected.2. heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order passed by learned additional district judge.3. the execution of the documents dated 1.10.1971 and 9.1.1984 was admitted by the plaintiff petitioner in his statement before court. later on the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under section 151 cpc 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.4. counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority reported in 1970 rlw 320 (harak chand v. state of rajasthan) 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 cpc vide act no. 104 of 1976, jurisdiction of the court under section 115 cpc has been enlarged. in support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 1992(1) wlc 643 (bhorosilal and another v. moot chand and some other cases. it is correct that explanation to section 115 in cpc was added vide act no. 104 of 1976. after the amendment expression 'any case which has been decided' 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 (1) of section 115 cpc.5. 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 jurisdtitional error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under section 115 cpc.6. there is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed.