SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Guj) 11

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :V.B.RAJU
BACHIBAI ALIAS KUNVERBAI WD/o SHAH THAKERSHI NENSHI - Appellant
Versus
SHAH VIRJI DEVJI - Respondent
Civil Revision 100 of 1962
Decided On : 01/25/1963

Advocates Appeared: K.N.MANKAD, S.B.MAJMUDAR, YOGESH S.MANKAD

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code , 1908 – Section 115 - Document was admitted in evidence by the trial Court and the contention in revision is that the trial Judge was wrong in admitting the document in evidence and that in holding that the document was admissible in evidence the learned Judge has misconstrued the document as a partition and not as a release - Where Court admits a document or refuses to admit it in evidence that matter cannot be the subject matter of revision – Held, Court refuses to allow it that does not amount to deciding a case but it amounts to deciding a question regarding the admissibility of certain evidence - Therefore when the Court decides questions under the Evidence Act it is not deciding a case - Not be the subject matter of revision - Same view has been taken then was in Babulal v. Jugalkishore A. I. R. 1954 Nagpur 254 - Court therefore hold that this revision application does not lie and dismiss it - No order as to costs - Application dismissed.

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application arises in the following circumstances:- A particular document was admitted in evidence by the trial Court and the contention in revision is that the trial Judge was wrong in admitting the document in evidence and that in holding that the document was admissible in evidence the learned Judge has misconstrued the document as a partition and not as a release. Where the Court admits a document or refuses to admit it in evidence that matter cannot be the subject matter of revision under sec. 115 C. P. Code. During the course of examination of witnesses a Court has to give various rulings on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and answers given There cannot be a revision against every decision of the Judge allowing the question to be put. When the Court allows a question to be put or refuses the question to be put that would not amount to deciding a case. Similarly when the Court allows document to be admitted in evidence or the Court refuses to allow it that does not amount to deciding a case but it amounts to deciding a question regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. Therefore when the Court decides questions under the Evidence Act it is not deciding a case and therefore its decision cannot be the subject matter of revision under sec. 115 C. P. Code. The same view has been taken in by Mudholkar J. as he then was in Babulal v. Jugalkishore A. I. R. 1954 Nagpur 254 I therefore hold that this revision application does not lie and dismiss it. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top