G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) RADHEY Shyam plaintiff has filed this revision application against the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh rejecting his application for admission of three documents under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Anil Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent that no revision can be entertained on the question whether an application under Order 13 Rule 2 should have been accepted or rejected. He relies upon the judgment of this court reported in Harakchand v. State of Rajas-than, 1970 Raj LW 320, where a Full Bench consisting of bhandari, C. J. and Bhargava and Modi JJ, observed as under:

"14. In this case it has been argued before us that by wrongly construing a document, the trial court held that it was admissible in evidence, while on a proper construction of document, it was inadmissible in evidence because of the provisions of the Registration act and that the trial court thus proceeded to incorporate on record inadmissible evidence which would eventually be taken in consideration while finally deciding the case. Whether a particular evidence was admissible according to law or no