Madras High CourtP. Karunakaran vs V.M. Ponnuswamy Achari on 7 November, 1980Equivalent citations: (1981)1MLJ485Author:A. VaradarajanBench:A. VaradarajanORDER
 

A. Varadarajan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the ruling given by the Rent Controler, Villupuram, on the question whether an un-registered document can be received in evidence. Having regard to the view expressed by me that it is not desirable to admit civil revision petitions against the trial Court's ruling allowing or disallowing a particular piece of evidence, in view of the fact that the error, if any committed by the trial Court in admitting a particular piece of evidence or declining to admit such a piece of evidence, could be rectified in the appellate forum, Mr. R. S. Venkatachari the learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to three decisions. Ore of them is Mt. Hubraji v. Deputy Commissioner, Fyrabad A.I.R. 1943 Oudh. 169. where the learned Judge has observed thus:A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that this revision petition is not maintainable as the learned District Judge in passing the order in question did not act as a Court or a Civil Court subordinate to this Court. A reference has been made in support of this contention to Manavala Goundan v. Kumarappo Reddy (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 326, 17 M.L.J. 313.Maganna Nayudu v. Pattaohiramayya(1928) I.L.R. 51 Mad. 245 : 27 L.W. 346 : 54 M.L.J. 595 : A.I.R. 1928 Mad.425. and Deputy Commissioner, Partapgar v. Ram Harekh A.I.R. 1926 Oudh. 397. In the two Madras cases, the order in question was one passed by the District Register acting under theRegistration Act. These cases have, therefore, no relevancy to the present case. The Oudh case does not deal with this point at all. All that was held in that case was that when an application underSection 61is made by the Collector to the Revision Court, no notice to the person liable is required to be issued. Although learned Counsel for the appellant complained that the order was passed by the learned District Judge behind his back and without any notice to him, he has not urged that the order on that account is void.After making this observation, the learned Judge has held that the decision of the learned District Judge in that case was correct and must be upheld.2. That is not a case where a revision petition has been admitted against a trial Court's ruling on the question of admissibility or otherwise of any piece of evidence.3. The next decision to which my attention was drawn by Mr. R. S. Venkatachari is of Shahmiri, J. in Rahim Peray v. Mst. Jenti A.I.R. 1957 J.& K. 49. where the learned Judge has held that a revision lies against an interlocutory order of a Munsif determining the nature of the document produced by the plaintiff and admitting it in evidence on payment of duty and penalty under proviso (1) toSection 35. The learned Judge observed thus:A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the non-applicant that the revision was not the proper remedy for the applicant and that underSection 39of the Stamp Act the plaintiff could approach the Collector and obtain refund of the whole penalty if his objection was well-founded. I am not clear ifSection 39would apply in this case as the document has not, in fact, been impounded by the trial Court.The next point taken by counsel for the non-applicant is that underSection 61of the Stamp Act the Court to which appeals lie from or references are made by, trial Court can take such order into consideration and, therefore, the applicant should move the District Court. I however, do not see anything inSection 61of the Stamp Act which could prevent this Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in the matter. I am supported in this conclusion by Mt. Hubraji v. Deputy Commissioner, Fyzabad A.I.R. 1943 Oudh. 169. to which my attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the applicant.The relevant provision inSection 61of the Stamp Act was considered by the Oudh Chief Court and it was held that there was no reason to think that the word 'Court' as used inChapter VI of the Stamp Actin whichSection 61is included has any meaning other than that which the same word bears in Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The heading of the Chapter, namely, Reference and Revision, supports the conclusion that the power of the High Court in this respect, which it has under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code remains unaffected. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled.The last decision to which my attention Was drawn by Mr. R. S. Venkatachari is that of Rajamannar, CJ., reported in A. Devasikamuni Gounder v. M. A. Andamuthu Gounder and Ors. (1956) 1 M.L.J. 457 : (1956) 8 S.T.G. 265 : (1957) 58 Crl. L.J. 258. In that case, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit agreement itself amounted to a regular instrument of partition and not having properly stamped and registered, it was invalid and not admissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever and a suit based on such a document was not maintainable. There was a preliminary issue raised. The preliminary issue raised read thus:Whether the document dated 7th January, 1947, is not valid in the absence of registration and proper stamp?The learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore held that the document, though styled an agreement, was itself a deed of partition by which the joint owners divided their property in severalty and was therefore liable to stamp duty underArticle 45of theIndian Stamp Act. He further held that it followed that underSection 35of the Indian Stamp Act the document could not be admitted in evidence for any purpose unless proper stamp duty and penalty was paid. He did not decide the question whether the instrument was one falling underSection 17of the Indian Registration Act and so could not be admitted in evidence underSection 49of that Act. He thought that question could be considered only after the plaintiff had paid the stamp duty and penalty on the instrument. The Civil revision petition had been filed to have that order revised.4. I am of the opinion that this decision does not apply to the facts of the present case where the ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the document has been given by the Rent Controller not 'on any preliminary issue or point framed by him which would have the effect of completely disposing of the matter before him one way or the other. I am of the opinion that no progress can be made in the trial Court if civil revision petitions are admitted against the ruling given by the trial Court on the admissibility or otherwise of a particular piece of evidence, as the trial Court may have innumerable occasions to allow or disallow any particular piece of evidence during the trial of a suit or other proceeding. The mistake if any commuted by the trial Court in the admissibility or otherwise of a particular piece of evidence can be rectified by moving the appellate Court in an appeal against the order or decree which may be ultimately passed by the Trial Court after taking in-to consideration or declining to take into consideration the particular piece of evidence. The C.R.P. is therefore dismissed.