ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J.
1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
2. A Suit No. 1 of 1983 was filed by one Smt. Nirmal Kumari, the opposite party, against the revisionist in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in his capacity as the Judge, Small Cause Courts at Fatehpur, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc.
3. The case of the plaintiff opposite party was that the revisionist had obtained the premises in dispute on rent on 27th June, 1979, and had executed a rent note and delivered it to the plaintiff opposite party. On that date, he paid rent only for one month and, thereafter, did not pay the rent, hence the suit .
4. The revisionist contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He did not execute the rent note dated 27th June, 1979, nor did he sign any such document nor did he pay rent for the month of July 1979.
5. During the trial of the suit, when the plaintiff opposite party examined the scribe to prove the document dated 27th June, 1979, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the document was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and insufficiency of stamp duty.
6. The Court below decided this objection raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist by an order dated 26th September, 1983, and fixed 5th October, 1983, for further evidence. The Court below took the view that the document was admissible in evidence, as it did not require registration. Aggrieved by the decision dated 26th September, 1983, the present revision has been filed in this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that the view taken by the Court below, that the document is admissible in evidence, as it did not require registration, is a view manifestly erroneous. Learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, urged that the decision as to whether a document is admissible or not in evidence is not a case decided and, as such, no revision lies against such an order.
8. In so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned. I have examined the document dated 27th June, 1979. It is in unilateral document. The document has been written by the revisionist in favour of the opposite party taking the property on rent. The rate of rent has also been described. It is not a bilateral document or any lease deed. The question of registrations of any such document does not arise. The argument is misconceived.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Zarif Ahmad v. Satish Kumar, 1983 All Rent Case 422 : AIR 1983 All 164. The principle laid down in this case does not apply to the facts of the present case. The case before the Division Bench was in relation to a document, which was a lease deed, but not registered. The Bench took the view that even if the document was not compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, the lease deed was required to be registered in view1 of the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act if the deed was in writing. In the instant case, as I have already stated above, it is not a lease deed at all. It is only an unilateral document executed by the revisionist in favour of the opposite party laying down the terms on which he took the property on rent. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, in my opinion, does not have any substance.
10. In regard to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party, this objection, also, in my view, is well founded. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is as follows : --
"25. REvision of decrees and orders of Court of Small Causes -- The District Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit" (Vide U. P. Amendment Act No. 17 of 1966).
"Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court."
11. The material words in this Section are, "in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes." If a case is decided by a Court of Small Causes, then only a revision would lie under section 25 of the Act.
12. In the present case the challenge by the revisionist is against two orders passed by the Court below, Firstly, that the document was admissible in evidence as it did not require registration and secondly, that the document was not insufficiently stamped.
13. In Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider as to whether the order passed by the trial Court admitting a document in evidence after rejecting the arguments raised by an adversary that the document has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped can be a subject-matter of revision by a superior Court. It held that no revision lay against such an order. This conclusion was reached after examining the various provisions of the Stamp Act The decision was given in the following terms :
"Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court rightly or wrongly decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed, Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect, and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case............
......Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction."
14. In view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, it is absolutely clear that once a document has been exhibited and the arguments raised by an adversary has been repelled by the trial Court in regard to the sufficiency of stamp, no Court of Appeal or any revisiohal Court can go behind that order. In the circumstances, so far as the second portion of the impugned order is concerned no revision lies against the said order.
15. In Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of power of appeal under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. While construing that provision it opined as follows : --
"In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Sections 36 and 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceeding; they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties."
16. In view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the question whether the document is admissible or not, does not affect any right or liability of the parties. It cannot, therefore, possibly be held that the first portion of the impugned order holding that the document was admissible in evidence amounts to a case decided.
17. In Sagarmal v. Gulab Chand, AIR 1978 Punj & Har 251, the Court had an occasion to consider this specific question as to whether an order passed by a court admitting a document in evidence overruling the objection of the other side, that it is not admissible, does amount to a case decided or not. The Court relying upon an earlier Full Bench decision of the same Court in Bibi Gurdevi v. Mohammad Baksh, AIR 1943 Lahore 65 held that such an order does not amount to a case decided. I respectfully agree with the decision given in the case of Sagarmal v. Gulab Chand, (supra).
18. In Hari Shankar v. Girdhari Lal, AIR 1963 SC 698, Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the opinion of Beaumont, C. J. in Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj, 40 Bom LR 125 : AIR 1938 Bom 223 where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed : --
"The object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference, but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction, or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has riot been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at."
19. The abovementioned opinion of Beaumont, C. J. was again accepted by the Supreme Court in Malini Ayyappa Naicker v. Seth Manghraj, AIR 1969 SC 1344.
20. From a reading of the abovementioned opinion by Beaumont, C. J. it is apparent that when the revisional Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it has jurisdiction to consider whether an order passed by Court of Small Causes in regard to the admissibility of a document on the basis of which, the final decision has been given by the Court can be a subject-matter of consideration by the revisional Court. In this view of the matter, the only course open to the revisionist is to challenge the first portion of the impugned order, when he is obliged to challenge the ultimate decision given by the Small Cause Court and not at this stage as it does not amount to a case decided. It is purely an interlocutory order.
21. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon a decision in Raghunath Bhandary v. Seetharama Punja, AIR 1972 Mys 344. The Mysore High Court has taken the view that a revision lies against an order where the question arises as to whether the promissory note was duly stamped or not and as such is admissible in evidence. The Mysore High Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 (supra). In my humble opinion, the Mysore High Court has wrongly interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand (supra). In fact, the Supreme Court as I find had categorically laid down that no revision at all lies if the trial Court decides the question about the sufficiency or insufficiency of stamp payable on a document. I consequently, disagree with the decision given in the above case. In view of the above, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party is accepted, the revision is not maintainable in law.
22. In the result, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The record of the case shall be sent to the Court below forthwith so that there is no delay in disposal of the case pending before the trial Court. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs.