Habib Dar vs Mst. Zoona Bibi

J.N. Bhat, J.—This is a revision petition directed against an order of the Judge Small Causes Sri nagar dated 25th Sept. 1963 whereby he

has held a clause document dated 15th January 1961 as Omissible in evidence because it was not registered. This revision is u/s 24 of the Small

Cause Courts Act.

A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that this revision is not maintainable, that revisional powers of the

court can be exercised only in three circumstances given in Section 115 of the CPC he has Invited my attention to a very recent authority of the

Supreme Court reported as Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon, . In that authority their Lordships have dealt with the history of the revisional

jurisdiction of the High Courts, how It came Into being and under what circumstances it has to be exercised. The present application is u/s 24 of

the Small Cause Courts Act and not u/s lis civc. and therefore I need not discuss the principles governing the disposal of revision applications u/s

115 CPC The learned Counsel for the Respondent has stated that the scope of the latter section is narrower than that of Section 115 of the CPC

But I am afraid his statement of this proposition of law is not correct. There Is a conation us series of authorities on the point that the scope of

Section 24 of the Small Cause Courts Act (Section 25 of the Indian Act) is wider than that of Section 115 CPC These authorities begin from Sher

v. Mohan Singh, GG Pun Re 1895 up to date.

Mr. Scoble In the debates in Council pp. 25-26 (See Gazette of India, March 5, 1887, Fart VI) save ""The third point of importance to which I

think iv necessary to call the attention of the Council is this. A recent decision of the irlvy Council Amir Hassan v. Sheo Baksh ILR 11 Cal 6 (PC)

has given a very restricted interpretation to Section 622 CPC 1882 (Section 115 CPC 1008) and has limited the revisional power's of the High

Courts only to cases in which an error in the exercise of jurisdiction has been committed, thereby leaving it competent to inferior courts to commit

manifest mistakes of law without the possibility of such mistakes being corrected by a higher tribunal. We have drawn Section 25 of the Bill so as

to restore to the High Courts the jurisdiction which for many years they were believed to possess and which It is very desirable they should

continue to exorcise and we have enacted that ""the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself. ... as it thinks fit."" The report of the select

committee on this bill made the following remarks:

The opinion appears to be universal that the ruling of the Privy Council in ILR 11 Cal 6 (PC) has rendered it absolutely necessary to extend the

jurisdiction which the High Courts possess over the judicial proceedings of courts of Small Causes and the other Courts invested with their

powers.

There is no doubt that this power by the High Court of entertaining applications in revision u/s 24 of the Small Cause Courts Act should not be

abused and should be used to advance the cause of justice. And It has generally not been the practice of the High Court to interfere when there are

no substantial merits in the applicant's case "". . . . It interferes to remedy injustice. It is slow to interfere when substantial justice has been done by

the subordinate court, though technically the Plaintiff or the Defendant may have a legitimate ground of attack or defence."" (See Foona City

Municipality v. Ramji ILR 21 Bom 250) There are numerous other authorities on the point.

In the present case I feel that much of the defence of the Defendant may depend upon the admissibility of the document in question. The learned

Counsel for the applicant has argued before me that he has no grievance against the order of the trial court in rejecting this document so far as it

creates or extinguishes any right in immovable property. He says he wanted to use this document to prove the admission of the executant to have

received money which was a clear defence to the Plaintiff's suit. In these circumstances I think I should entertain this revision and I do entertain it.

On the merits of the case I agree with the trial court as has been conceded by the learned Counsel for the applicant that this document requires

registration. So far as the creation or extinction of any right in immovable property is concerned, I cannot at this stage exactly say what the

Defendant wants to prove from this document, notwithstanding the statement of his learned Counsel that he wants only to prove the admission of

the parties of having received Rs. 1500/- in total satisfaction of their claim. It would, therefore, be premature for me to adjudicate upon this point

finally here. The law, however, is very well settled that if a document is presented in a court and is unregistered, some portions of it may be

admissible in evidence notwithstanding its being not registered and some other portions of the same may be completely inadmissible. On that there

is no dearth of authority. For Instance Musa v. Amir Wani, (S) AIR 1955 J&K 31 is an authority on that point.

In a case Salam Rather v. Mohd. Ganal AIR 1964 J&K 46 I have had to discuss this point in detail. On the basis of this settled law the

Defendant can claim the indulgence of the trial court in admitting such portions of the document as do not pertain to the creation or extinction of

rights in Immovable property. The trial court, while examining the witnesses about this document, shall be in a better position to decide the question

of its admissibility with regard to the particular points sought to be proved before it. The trial court will of course keep the observations made in

this revision petition in view as to how far the document or any portion of It is or is not admissible in evidence.

This revision is, therefore, accepted and the trial court is directed to decide this question afresh In the light of the material that would be sought

to be brought on record by the Defendant with respect to this document.

There will be no order as to costs.