Rajesh Prasad Tripathi vs Ramavtat Now Died Through His Lrs ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 560 MP

                                     1




          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         M.P. No.124-2022
           (Rajesh Prasad Tripathi vs. Ramavtar and others)

Jabalpur, Dated 12/01/2022.

      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.
      Heard.
1.    Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21/12/2021, whereby
dismissing the objection of the petitioner/plaintiff the trial Court has
allowed the production/exhibition of document (Annexure P-5)
produced by the respondent in his evidence.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract based on the agreement (Ex.P-1). The suit was initially decreed ex parte and the sale-deed was executed by the Court on the basis of decree. Later, the respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was allowed. The ex parte judgment and decree were set aside. Sale-deed was also declared void and suit was restored for rehearing. The petitioner/plaintiff concluded his evidence and during the evidence, the respondent produced a document Annexure P-5, which reads as under:-

Þrkjh[k 25 ebZ lu~~ 1999 JhjkekvkSrkj oYn guqekunhu f=ikBh] jkelqUnj oYn guqekunhu f=ikBh ipyh [kqnZ ftyk lruk e-iz-

eSa jkevkSrkj vius NksVs HkkbZ jkelqUnj ds jk; ls ftles esjs HkkbZ dk fgLlk gS vkjkth uEcj 3 jdck 60 fMlfey viuh iksrh dh lknh ds fy;s vkjkth fcØh djds eqjkyh /kksch cYn cgksjh /kksch lkfdu fcjflagiqj ljfdy fojflgiqj okys ls 48][email protected]&:i;s gtkj vadu vM+rkfyl gtkj 'kCnksa es fy;k A viuh gkslckl eSaus jde fy;k 48][email protected]&:i;s 'kCnks gtkj :i;sA eSa jkekvkSrkj] ipyh [kqnZ ftyk lruk e-iz- eS ;g cpu nsrk gw fd viuh iksrh ds lknh ds ckn rqEgkjs uke jtLVjh djok nwxkWA ftles eSa vkSj esjs ojlku dk dksbZ jksd ugh gksxk A jkekvkSrkj guqekunhu cdyx jkelqUnj f=ikBhÞ

3. The petitioner/plaintiff objected for admission of the document stating that it was a sale-deed or at least agreement to sell, therefore, its registration was compulsory in view of sub-Section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, it cannot be accepted in evidence and the respondent cannot be permitted to prove the document.

4. The trial Court observing that this was only an admission and therefore, without registration the respondent can be permitted to produce or prove the document and dismissed the objection of the petitioner/plaintiff and permitted the respondent to produce the document in evidence.

5. The crux of the case lies in the nature of the document and its content shows that this is a document of receiving of money with a promise that the author of the document will execute the sale-deed in favour of the creditor. Therefore, no illegality appears in the order of the trial Court.

6. The petition being sans of merits is dismissed accordingly.

(Virender Singh) Judge rv Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.01.14 16:49:47 +05'30'