JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 5-4-1997 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Udaipur, passed in Civil original suit No. 171/92 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 16, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. 2. For the proper disposal of this revision petition the following facts need mention. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for redemption of the suit premises with the averments that the plaintiff mortgaged the suit premises with the defendant by a registered mortgage-deed dated 6-11-1992 for a sum of Rs. 49,000/- for a period of 10 years. After the period of 10 years was over on 5-11-1992 the plaintiff issued a registered notice to the defendant to accept the amount and deliver the possession of mortgaged property free from any encumbrance. The plaintiff further stated that in case the defendant failed to deliver the possession as demanded, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover damages of Rs. 3,500/- per month from the former. The defendant, however, neither replied to the notice which was received by him on 11-6- 1992 nor delivered the possession of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that he should be allowed to redeem the mortgage and the mortgaged property be delivered to him. He further demanded damages (mesne profits) @ Rs. 3,500/- per month for violation of the directions of the plaintiff as contained in the notice. The defendant contested the suit. He admitted the execution of the so called mortgage-deed dated 6-11-1982. He also admitted the recital of consideration of Rs. 49,000/- but pleaded that in fact it was not a mortgage-deed but the plaintiff let out the suit premises on rent of Rs. 5,00/- per month commencing on 6-11-1982. The sum of Rs. 49,000/- mentioned as mortgaged money was in fact a security. This was done in order to frustrate the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act. The defendant also made a counter claim and the only fact needs mention is that the defendant stated at page 4 of the written statement that the plaintiff has shown the amount received from the defendant not as rent but as interest which was wrong. The issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties on 2-12-1993. The defendant also made a counter claim and the only fact needs mention is that the defendant stated at page 4 of the written statement that the plaintiff has shown the amount received from the defendant not as rent but as interest which was wrong. The issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties on 2-12-1993. Issue No. 1 is with regard to the averments made by the plaintiff regarding the mortgage of the suit premises and the second issue is with regard to the damages claimed by the plaintiff @ Rs. 3,500 per month. Issues 3 and 4 are with regard to the plea raised by the defendant that the above suit premises were not in fact mortgaged but let out at a monthly rent but instead of a rent note, the plaintiff got a mortgage-deed executed in his favour by the defendant in order to defeat the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act. It may also be mentioned that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act on 17-3- 1994. Feeling aggrieved by the above rejection of application, the defendant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act before the Court of District Judge, Udaipur which was dismissed on 4-5-1997. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while filing list of witnesses, the defendant has listed the name of I.T.O., Ward II at serial No. 8 of his list. Before the statement of plaintiff was recorded, the defendant submitted an application under Section 151 C. P. C. stating that the plaintiff has mentioned in the books of account which were produced before the Income tax Department that Rs. 500/- has been shown as rent. The defendant, therefore, wanted to summon the books of accounts from 1982 to 1992 from the plaintiff at the time of cross-examination. The plaintiff did not file any reply to the application and contested the same. The learned trial Court dismissed the above application by the impugned order dated 5-4-1997. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for redemption of mortgage. The plaintiff produced the registered mortgage-deed. Even the defendant has not denied the execution of mortgage deed. The learned trial Court dismissed the above application by the impugned order dated 5-4-1997. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for redemption of mortgage. The plaintiff produced the registered mortgage-deed. Even the defendant has not denied the execution of mortgage deed. As against this admitted document evidencing mortgage of the suit property, the defendant, in order to delay the disposal of the case, raised false and frivolous defence that there was no mortgage but the plaintiff let out the house on rent. The burden squarely lay on the defendant to prove this plea. He also referred to the fact that on the request of the defendant, the Court ordered for furnishing the Income-tax no and Ward No. of the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant did not show receipt in respect of the suit premises as rent. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order as well as the other documents. It is very important to refer to the averment made by the defendant in his counter claim that the plaintiff has shown this amount as interest. The defendant cannot now get over this demand or averment made by him. Now what the defendant wants to prove is that the defendant (plaintiff 2) has shown receipt of Rs. 500/- as rent. This goes contrary to the statement made by the defendant in his written statement. Moreover, the defendant has not laid any foundation to support the view that the plaintiff has shown the receipt of Rs. 500/- per month as rent of the above suit premises. The plaintiff has not made any such positive statement. On the contrary he has shown the receipt as interest. 7. The trial Court has jurisdiction to decide the question which was before him and it was decided. Whether the decision is right or wrong, it cannot be said that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case. It has been held by the Supreme Court that even if the trial Court decided wrongly, it did not exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 8. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******