A. R. BAKSHI, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 3 600 being the amount of three instalments due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs under a document Exhibit 4/1 executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also relied on another document Exhibit 4/2 in support of this claim though the claim was rested primarily on the document Exhibit 4/1. The defendants amongst various defences raised by them in the written statement urged that the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and since they were inadequately stamped they were not admissible in evidence. One of the issues framed by the trial Court namely issue No. 3 therefore raised the question whether the documents Exhibits 4/1 land 4/2 were promissory notes and hence inadmissible in evidence. At the trial of the suit when the plaintiffs partner Chimanlal Jagjivandas was in the witness-box and was being examined in chief the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were sought to be tendered in evidence and an objection was therefore raised on behalf of the defendants against their admissibility. The trial Court heard the arguments on the question whether the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and by an order dated 20th February 1962 held that the said documents were promissory notes and being inadequately stamped they were inadmissible in evidence. Issue No. 3 was accordingly answered against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred the present revision application challenging the decision of the trial Court.

( 2 ) WHEN the revision application first reached hearing before me as a single Judge a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendants and the preliminary objection was that the revision was incompetent as the case did not fall within the four corners of sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The determination of the preliminary objection obviously depended on the true scope and ambit of sec. 115 and I felt that the question of construction of sec. 115 raised by the preliminary objection was a question of some importance which may be decided by a Division Bench of this Court and I therefore referred the revision application to a Division Bench. That is bow the revision application has now come up for hearing before us. The revision application is directed against the decision of the trial Court in regard to both the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 but there is no distinction in principle between the case relating to the document Exhibit 4/1 and that relating to the document Exhibit 4/2 and therefore whatever we say in regard to the decision of the trial Court relating to the document Exhibit 4/1 will apply equally to the decision relating to the document Exhibit 4/2.

( 3 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is and that is the question which necessitated the reference of the present revision application to a Division Bench whether a revision application lies against the decision of the subordinate Court holding that the document Exhibit 4/1 on which the suit is brought by the plaintiffs is a promissory note and not being adequately stamped it is not admissible in evidence. The determination of the question depends on the interpretation of the provision of sec. 115 which is the section which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. Sec. 115 says :-115 The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies hereto and if such subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the High court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. A plain reading of the section shows th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document