AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohd. Yamin, J.—By the impugned order dated 7.10.1997, learned trial Judge while deciding issue No.5 as preliminary issue held that the document in question was a receipt u/s 2(23) of the Stamp Act and not a pronote and held it to be admissible in evidence as such. Aggrieved by this order the defendant petitioner submitted this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
It was submitted by counsel for respondent that no revision could be filed against impugned order and reliance was placed on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Harakchand Vs State of Rajasthan, 1970 RLW page 320, wherein relying on a Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas Vs Shah Bhogilal Nathalal, AIR 1968 Guj. page 236, it was held that the error of law by the subordinate Court in deciding whether a document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act or not, was not concerned with the jurisdiction of the subordinate court and, therefore, none of the three clauses of Section 115 CPC will be attracted to the case. It was held that no revision lies against such an order and the revision was dismissed with costs. As against this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1994 Raj. page 1, Kundan Mal Vs Nand Kishore and etc. wherein scope of Section 115 CPC has been considered and held that such a revision was maintainable. This is a Single Bench judgment. But I am bound by Full Bench Judgment. The case is squarely covered by this Full Bench judgment.
Counsel for petitioner tried to argue the matter on merits and it was submitted that the document was a promissory note. Reliance was placed on Gopaldas Vs Ramdeo, 1958 RLW page 73. When I am not going to entertain this revision petition in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated.
In view of above discussion, the revision is barred by Full bench judgment of this Court and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the respondent.