An order of a Small Cause Court admitting a document in evidence is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and therefore, no revision petition lies against such an order.

( 1 ) THIS is a civil revision filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

( 2 ) A Suit No. 1 of 1983 was filed by one Smt. Nirmal Kumari, the opposite party, against the revisionist in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in his capacity as the Judge, Small Cause Courts at Fatehpur, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff opposite party was that the revisionist had obtained the premises in dispute on rent on 27th June, 1979, and had executed a rent note and delivered it to the plaintiff opposite party. On that date, he paid rent only for one month and, thereafter, did not pay the rent, hence the suit.

( 4 ) THE revisionist contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He did not execute the rent note dated 27th June, 1979, nor did he sign any such document nor did he pay rent for the month of July 1979.

( 5 ) DURING the trial of the suit, when the plaintiff opposite party examined the scribe to prove the document dated 27th June, 1979, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the document was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and insufficiency of stamp duty.

( 6 ) THE Court below decided this objection raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist by an order dated 26th September, 1983, and fixed 5th October, 1983, for further evidence. The Court below took the view that the document was admissible in evidence, as it did not require registration. Aggrieved by the decision dated 26th September, 1983, the present revision has been filed in this Court.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has urged that the view taken by the Court below, that the document is admissible in evidence, as it did not require registration, is a view manifestly erroneous. Learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, urged that the decision as to whether a document is admissible or not in evidence is not a case decided and, as such, no revision lies against such an order.

( 8 ) IN so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned, I have examined the document dated 27th June, 1979. It is in unilateral document. The document has been written by the revisionist in favour of the opposite party taking the property on rent. The rate of rent has also been described. It is not a bilateral document or any lease deed. The question of registration of any such document does not arise. The argument is misconceived.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Zarif Ahmad v. Satish Kumar, 1983 All Rent Case 422. The principle laid down in this case does not apply to the facts of the present case. The case before the Division Bench was in relation to a document, which was a lease deed, but not registered. The Bench took the view that even if the document was not compulsorily registered under S. 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, the lease deed was required to be registered in view of the provisions of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act if the deed was in writing. In the instant case, as I have already stated above, it is not a lease deed at all. It is only an unilateral document executed by the revisionist in favour of the opposite party laying down the terms on which he took the property on rent. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, in my opinion, does not have any substance.

( 10 ) IN regard to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party, this objection, also, in my view, is well founded. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is as follows :-"25. Revision of decrees and orders of Court of Small Causes - The District Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law