Judgment V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, to the maintainability of this revision petition, According to him, the decision as to the admissibility of a document in evidence is neither a jurisdic-tional error nor an illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and for that reason, the revision petition is not maintainable. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel on the preliminary objection as well as the merits of the case. However, before going to the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the preliminary objection. ( 3 ) BY the impugned order, the learned trial Court has held that the concerned document is a sale deed and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The petitioner has challenged this decision on the ground that a bare reading of the document shows that it is an agreement and not the sale deed and as an agreement was not compulsorily registrable at the relevant time, the document was admissible in evidence. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the non-petitioner placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Harakchand v. The State of rajasthan, wherein it has been held that the construction of a document is a part of proceedings of the court and if these proceedings are conducted properly and a mistake is made in construing. the document, the order passed by the Court is not revisable. When the court is construing a document for the purpose of deciding whether it is admissible in evidence for want of registration, the construction of the document is no doubt a question of law but simply because it is question of law, it does not mean that in construing a document as having particular import, the subordinate court acted with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Full bench disagreed with the view taken by wanchoo, C. J. (as he then was) Moonlal v. Sampatlal, that the finding of the Trial Court that the document is not a promissory note and was admissible in evidence on payment of duty and penalty could be revised by the High court under Section 115, C. P. C. ( 5 ) THE view taken in Poonam Chand v. M/s. Bastiram Deokishan, whether the question as to whether a document is admissible or not is a matter of procedure, was also dissented from. ( 6 ) IN the present case, no procedural illegality or irregularity has been averred in the memoranda of revision petition. In the arguments also, it has not been shown that the proceedings, were, in any manner, conducted illegally or with material irregularity. The question, therefore, is purely of construction of the document which according to Harakchands case (supra) does not fall within the scope of section 115, C. P. C. As 1 am bound by the Full bench decision of this Court, I have no alternative but to dismiss this revision petition as not maintainable. ( 7 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. Revision dismissed. .