D.P. Gupta, J.
1. In these two writ petitions common questions of law & facts arise and as such they are disposed of by a common order.
2. In civil original suits filed before the learned District Judge, Pali by the petitioners, the plaintiffs produced documents in respect of which the defendant-respondents in their written statement submitted that they were not admissible in evidence being unstamped The learned District Judge in each of the two suits, framed an issue as to whether the document in question was not duly stamped and was inadmissible in evidence? According to the plaintiffs, the documents in question were mere recipes while accord ins1 to the defendant-respondents the said documents were promissory notes or in alternative they were bonds. The trial court, after considering the matter held in each of the two suits that the documents in question were neither receipts nor promissory notes but they art bends and they could be admitted in evidence on payment of proper tamp duty and peachy : Aggrieved against the orders passed by the trial court deciding the aforesaid issue in each one of the two suits, the. plaintiffs filed revision petitions in this Court, which were dismissed by my brother Mode J., by his orders dated May 3, 1977, holding that the revision applications yare not maintainable against the decision of the that court to the effect that the documents were not stamped or inadequately stamped and were inadmissible in evidence on that ground. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan 1970 R.L.W. 320 was relied upon by the learned Judge in support of his aforesaid decision.
3. The petitioners have now filed these two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the District Judge, Pali in each of the two suits deciding the issue, holding that the documents in question were bonds and could be admitted in evidence only after payment of stamp duty and penalty Learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Finn poonam Nabia v. Amerchand and Ors. 1972 W.L.N. 1124 in support of his contention. In my view these writ petitions cannot be entertained by this Court against the derision of a single issue in the two civil suits which are still pending before the trial court. It is not the practice of this Count to interfere with interlocutory orders passed be a Cogitator in the exercise of its with jurisdiction. The law is well settled that ware is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy this Count should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the ease of Firm Pooram Nahta (2) the matter arose out of an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure, and no appeal was maintainable even against the final order that night have been passed subsequently in the objection petition under Order XXI. Rule 58. Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the learned Judge was of the view that the demand for a huge penalty and stamp duty in the circumstances of that case would result in gross injustice and the petitioner in the to case would be precluded in establishing the claim to the property attached for not being able to pay a huge amount of 11,000/- by way of stamp duty and penalty Looking to the special circumstances of that case, the learned Single Judge thought it proper to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction to avoid the perpetuation of injustice in that case. I am unable to find any such reason in these cases. The decision in Firm Poonam Nahta (2) was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be applied to these cases. No such circumstances have been alleged in these writ petitions so as to attract the application of the aforesaid decision Moreover after the judgment of the lea> tied Single Judge in Firm Poonam Nahta (2) was delivered, Article 226 of the Constitution has been amended with the introduction of Sub-clause (3) therein to the following effect:
226(3). No petition for the redress of any injary referred to in Sub-clause (b) or Sub-clause (e) of Clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force.
It cannot be denied that the cases of the petitioners fall in Sub-clause (b) or Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of Article 22 as no question of fundamental right is involved in these cases It cannot also be denied that the petitioners will have an appropriate remedy available to them of challenging the findings arrived at by the learned D.J. Pali, on the sasses relating to the admissibility of the document in question before this Court in regular civil first appeals, that may be preferred against the final decrees which ma) be passed in the 2 suits After the introduction of Sub-clause (3) in Art 226 of the Constitution, this Court is precluded from entertaining writ petitions under that Article for the redress of any injury referred to in Sub-clause (b) or Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of that Article in those cases in which any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law. As specific legal remedies are provided in these two cases by way of filing appeals in this Court against the final decrees that may be passed in the suits by the learned District Judge, Fali, this Court is unable to entertain these writ petitions', more so after the amendment of Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court exercises extra-ordinary jurisdiction and can certainly interfere in cases of gross injustice. It would not be proper for this Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with the decision of a single issue by a civil court, which issue does not relate to the jurisdiction of that court. If the petitioners feel aggrieved against the decision of the issue in these cases, they can agitate the matter in regular civil first appeals that may be filed hi this Court against the decrees that would be passed by the learned District Judge, Pali in the two suits which are pending before him.
4. In the circumstances is am of the view that these writ petitions.