Rajaram vs Purnima
2025 Latest Caselaw 3130 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajaram vs Purnima on 22 January, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697




                                                              1                                MP-4353-2022
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 4353 of 2022
                                                              RAJARAM
                                                                Versus
                                                              PURNIMA
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Vijay Prabhakar Saraf - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Shri Brijesh Garg - Advocate for the respondent.

                                                                  ORDER

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of order dated 26/8/2022 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Civil Suit No.RCSA 0000002/2021 whereby the Court has rejected the objection taken by the petitioner/defendant pertaining to the document styled as 'extension in limitation' which was neither registered nor authenticated by the Notary.

2. It is submitted that the said document was neither part of the

registered document nor duly stamped by the notary and, therefore, the said document was required to be properly stamped before admitting in the evidence.

3. Facts draped in brevity are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction before the court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Khachrod alleging the fact that for the land in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697

2 MP-4353-2022 dispute, an agreement was executed on 24/07/2019 by petitioner in favour of respondent/plaintiff and as per the agreement the date of registration was agreed to be 31/12/2019. As per the agreement, the earnest money was also paid and remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The pre-requisite condition was that the defendant redeem the land in dispute, from the Bank of India, Branch Khachrod and ICICI Bank, Branch Bhuwasa as also HDFC Bank, Ratlam. Thereafter, extension of time was agreed, for which a separate agreement was executed on 31/12/2019. It is further stated that a separate agreement is neither duly stamped nor notarized/registered which is mandatory requirement of law. The Petitioner/defendant filed his written statement denying the facts alleged in the plaint and a specific special plea was also

made that the extension deed is not binding on the defendant. The trial court framed issues and fixed the case for recording the evidence of plaintiff on 26/08/2022. On 26/08/2022 the respondent/plaintiff appeared in the witness box and tried to exhibit the registered agreement dated 24/07/2019 alongwith the extension deed executed on 31/12/2019 for which, on behalf of petitioner, an objection was raised pertaining to admissibility of extension deed of limitation on the ground that the deed dated 31/12/2019 is a separate agreement which mandatorily require stamp duty for its registration or its notarization. It was also urged before the Court that neither there is serial number of the notary nor the notary stamp has been affixed by the aforesaid notary. Assuming as if its novation of contract, a separate document ought to have duly performed the mandatory requirements of Registration Act, Stamp

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697

3 MP-4353-2022 Act and Notary Act with the Rules framed under the provisions of each Act. The Court vide its order dated 26/08/2022 held that in earlier agreement dated 31/12/2019 the only time has been extended and other recitals of the agreement has neither been altered nor changed and rejected the objection and accordingly exhibit the document.

4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that from perusal of 'extension in limitation' executed or the registered deed, it is clear that for redemption of land the time was extended which changed the entire earlier agreement which ought to be separately duly stamped and registered. Thus, the trial Court has erred in rejecting the objection of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that in a suit for specific performance it is not necessary that the agreement should be a registered agreement under the Registration Act, 1908 and as per Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document 'extension of limitation' is deemed to be an "instrument".

6. In regard to first submission by counsel for the petitioner that the document of 'extension in limitation' which has been executed at the bottom of the original registered agreement, has to be separately stamped and then only it can be admitted in evidence, it is apposite to refer the judgments on the issue.

7. In case of S.Kaladevi vs V.R. Somasundaram reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654 the Apex Court held that unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of contract. In the

case of Manish and Another vs. Anil Kumar reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ 645 ,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697

4 MP-4353-2022 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that in a suit for specific performance, unregistered sale agreement is admissible in evidence. Documents required to be registered if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The same has been followed by another co-ordinate Bench in the case of Devi Singh Kushwah vs. Surajbhan Singh Gurjar and Another reported in 2017 (1) MPWN 68 and it was held that the suit for specific performance, unregistered agreement to sell may be received as evidence. Same view has been taken by another co-ordinate Bench at Indore in MA No.3583/2023(Oyster Building India Private Ltd. vs. Vishveshwarlal Hardia and Ors.).

8. Thus in the light of the aforesaid documents, it is held that unregistered agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance of contract is admissible in evidence.

9. In regard to the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid document 'extension in limitation' which has been executed by the parties at the bottom of the unregistered sale deed is required to be stamped separately or not ? It is apposite to refer the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1899. The word "instrument" has been defined under Section 2 (14) of the said Act which is reproduced as under:

(14) "instrument" includes-

(a) every document, by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded; (b) a document, electronic or otherwise, created for a transaction in a stock exchange or depository by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded; and

(c) any other document mentioned in Schedule I,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697

5 MP-4353-2022 but does not include such instruments as may be specified by the Government, by notification in the Official Gazette;]

10. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is held that the agreement for extension of time executed between the parties is part of the original sale deed. Thus, the trial Court has not erred in rejecting the objection of the petitioner that the said document is not duly stamped. Thus, this Court is does not find any case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. Even otherwise , it is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principle of law and justice. [See. Jai Singh and another vs. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329].

12. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Dubey and another vs. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal and another, 2004 (2) MPHT 14 held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction through available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1697

6 MP-4353-2022 certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied - (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The order impugned in the present petition passed by the Court below is upheld.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

PK