(1) This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Munsiff Jammu dated 21-11-1966 whereby he has held the transfer of a decree dated 5-11-63 in favour of the petitioner by S. Mohinder Singh the decree-holder as inadmissible in evidence.

(2) The facts that are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that S. Mohinder Singh obtained a compromise decree for ejectment of a house against the respondent by means of a compromise decree on 19-4-63. It appears that Mohinder Singh sold the property in dispute by means of a sale deed dated 4-11-63 to Krishan Lal, the present petitioner and by means of an agreement dated 5-11 63 transferred the decree obtained against the respondent to the present petitioner.

On the basis of the sale deed as well as the agreement he sought to eject the respondent from the suit property. He presented the agreement of 5-11-63 also with the execution application. An objection was taken that this transfer or assignment of decree being unregistered was not admissible in evidence. After hearing arguments on this point, the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the agreement being unregistered was not admissible in evidence. This revision is preferred against that very order holding the transfer of the decree dated 11-5-63 to be inadmissible in evidence.

(3) A preliminary objection has been taken that this order is not revisable. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred me to the following authorities :-

AIR 1963 Gujrat 241, AIR 1958 All. 659, AIR 1959 Punjab 609, AIR 1927 Bom. 646.

(4) The Gujrat authority is a very short one and does not give in detail the facts of that case. The factual portion is limited to the observation that a particular document was admitted in evidence by the trial court, and the contention in revision was that the trial court was wrong in admitting the document in evidence. Then comes the finding. It is no doubt true, as observed in this authority, that the court has given various reasons on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and the answers given. In fact it will not be conducive to proper justice to entertain revision petitions against all such interlocutory orders and decisions on the admissibility or otherwise of a particular piece of evidence, but the present case can be distinguished as I shall presently state.

(5) AIR 1954 Nagpur 254 which is refer-red to in this authority is a decision on another point namely that a revision lies only when a question of jurisdiction is involved.

(6) The Allahabad authority (Supra) relates to the interpretation of a document and it was held that where two interpretations could be given to a document and one had been adopted by the trial court, no revision lay against such an interpretation.

(7) In the Punjab authority Grover J held that where in admitting evidence the court did not act in excess of or in the absence of jurisdiction nor did it act with material irregularity, the High Court will not interfere in revision even though the decision is erroneous.

(8) In the Bombay authority (Supra) it is laid down that an interlocutory order rejecting certain evidence as inadmissible during the pendency of the suit is not revisable. There were two learned JJ. in that case and both of them gave separate judgments. Marten CJ based his decision on a Privy Council authority, AIR 1917 PC 71 which said that the section namely S. 115 of the Civil P. C. applied to jurisdiction alone and the irregular exercise or non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it. The section was not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction was not involved.

(9) Against these authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred me to two reported decisions of this court namely, AIR 1958 J & K 27 and AIR 1959 J & K 59:

(10) In the former authority it was held that on the refusal to allow a party to lead further evidence, this court had power to interfere in revision. In the other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document