Bhandari, J.—This is a revision application on behalf of Raghunath Prasad defendant against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated the 9th of January, 1957 holding that the document dated the 2nd of April, 1953 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Mangilal was not a promissory note but was an agreement and could be admitted in evidence after the payment of penalty. The defendant made an application to the trial court that he wanted to file a revision application in this Court and that the document may not be admitted in evidence and it has not yet been admitted in evidence.

2. I am very doubtful whether a revision application against the order determining the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act can be filed under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case as the learned Senior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act. As to the application of sub-sec. (c) of sec. 115, there are series of decisions of their Lordships to the Privy Council which all lay down the law that if a court has jurisdiction to decide a case and even if it decided wrongly,it cannot be said that it has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Rajah Amir Hassan Khan vs. Sheo Baksh Singh (1), Balakrishna Udayar vs. Vasudeva Aiyar (2), N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyenger vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (3) and Joy Chand Lal Babu vs. Kamlaksha Chaudhury (4). In Joy Chands case (4) it was pointed out that an error in decision of the subordinate court does not by itself involve that the subordinate court had acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under sub-sec. (c) of sec. 115 but if, as a result of such error in the decision the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested a case for revision under sub-sec. (a) or sub-sec. (b) may arise. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also considered sec. 115 C.P.C. in the case of Keshardeo Chamria vs. Radha Kissen Chamria (5) and after citing the Privy Council cases, referred to the case of Nagpur High Court in the case of Narayan Sonaji vs. Sheshrao Vithoba (6), wherein it was said that the words illegally do not cover either errors of fact or law. Their Lordships further observed as follows:—

"They do not refer to the decision arrived at but to the manner in which it is reached The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with."

3. The above authorities in my humble opinion clearly lay down the limits under which sec. 115 C.P.C. can be applied. As pointed out in Balakrishna Udayars case (2) this sec. is nor directed against the conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. But there is an authority of this Court in the case of Sahu Brijraj Sharan vs. Sahu Raghunandan Sharan (7) in which such a revision application was entertained and accepted. I do not think it is open to me sitting as a single Judge to take a contrary view. I also do not think that I should refer the matter to a larger bench as in my view the revision application fails on merits.

4. I, therefore, proceed to decide the revision application on merits.

5. Translated into English the relevant portion of the document runs thus:—

"Account one of Reghunath Prasadji Silawat of Jaipur

Rs. 30167/4/6 carried forward as balance due under the old account, Mitti 1st Baisakh Badi 2nd Svt. 2010 Dated 2.4.53 (Sd) RaghuNath Prasad Silawat.

Balance due after understanding the account. Whenever Mangilalji Naiwala demands the same, I shall pay with interest. (Sd) Raghu Nath Prasad in his own handwriting. Dated 2.3.53."

This document is contained in the Khata Bahi. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document