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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document