Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs Rakesh Kumar on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:31467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10600/2023
Madan Lal S/o Nand Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Jat, R/
o Village Dabli Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kkurnar, By Caste Jat R/o Village
Dabli Khurd , Tehsil Tibbi , District Hanumangarh (Raj).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 19/09/2023
Pronounced on 26/09/2023
1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed.
1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned
orders dated 15.7.2023 (Annx.9) passed by the learned
District Judge, Hanumangarh may kindly be declared illegal
and the same may be quashed and set aside by considering
the documents dated 14.5.2012 (Annx.3), 1.6.2012
(Annx.4) and 6.5.2016 (Annx.5) as Ex.A/1, Ex.A/2 and
Ex.A/3 respectively and the said documents may kindly be
permitted as admissible in evidence in the interest of
justice.
2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:42 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31467] (2 of 5) [CW-10600/2023]
3. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent instituted a suit
for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent
injunction before the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh against
the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Court below proceeded to
frame the issues, whereafter the trial in the suit commenced.
2.1. Thereafter, during the course of cross-examination, the
petitioner intended to get the documents dated 14.05.2012,
01.06.2012 and 06.05.2016 exhibited, before the learned Court
below, as Ex. A/1, A/2, and A/3, but the respondent raised the
objection in regard to exhibition of the said documents.
2.2. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated
15.07.2023 allowed the objections of the respondent in regard to
exhibitions of the aforementioned documents, while holding that
the said documents cannot be read as evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner executed an agreement with one of the partners,
namely, Duni Ram s/o Jeewan Ram of the Firm-M/s. Subhash
Chandra Banshi Lal, at Elanabad, pertaining to some part of his
agricultural land for the purpose of security & satisfaction on
14.05.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner borrowed some amount
from the respondent in order to clear the accounts of the Firm on
01.06.2012; the petitioner also sought to produce and exhibit the
agreement dated 06.05.2016, which ought to have been permitted
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:42 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31467] (3 of 5) [CW-10600/2023]
to be exhibited for effective and proper adjudication of the suit in
question; but the same was declined to be exhibited by the
learned Court below vide the impugned order, while allowing the
objections raised by the respondent against exhibitions of such
documents.
3.1. Learned counsel also submitted that the documents sought
to be exhibited by the petitioner were already on record, and that,
the same were also admitted by the respondent himself in his
cross-examination, and thus, such documents deserve to be
exhibited to be read as evidence for effective and proper
adjudication of the suit in question.
3.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
S. Kaladevi Vs V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC
401.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the documents sought
to be exhibited by the petitioner were not properly stamped, and
also the said documents were not registered, and therefore, the
same cannot be read as evidence.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent has
rightly raised the objection as against exhibition of the documents
in question, which are not admissible in evidence as per the
provisions of Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 read
with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:42 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31467] (4 of 5) [CW-10600/2023]
4.2. It was further submitted that the unstamped and
unregistered documents cannot be read as evidence and the
petitioner sought to exhibit such documents only for prolonging
the trial of the suit, which is not permissible in law, and thus, the
learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order.
4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama (Civil Appeal No.
3171 of 2018, decided on 23.03.2018). He further relied upon
the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Smt. Bali Devi Vs Chhagan Lal
(S.B.C.W.P. No. 5857 of 2008, decided on 14.02.2017) and
Rajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs Naveen Dadich (S.B.C.W.P.
No. 21894 of 2018, decided on 28.09.2018).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case along with judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the respondent instituted the
aforementioned suit and during pendency of the said suit, the
petitioner sought to exhibit the documents dated 14.05.2012,
01.06.2012 and 06.05.2016 as Ex. A/1, A/2, and A/3, but the
respondent raised objections with regard to the same. Thereafter,
learned Court below vide the impugned order allowed the
objections of the respondent while holding that the said
documents cannot be read as evidence.
7. This Court further observes that the learned Court below
held that there was no oral sale agreement between the petitioner
and respondent, rather the written agreement executed between
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:42 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31467] (5 of 5) [CW-10600/2023]
the parties was already on record, and therefore, the learned
Court below has rightly passed the impugned order.
8. This Court also observes that the petitioner wished to exhibit
the documents in question, but the same were unstamped and
unregistered documents, and thus, the learned Court below was
justified in law in passing the impugned order, while relying on the
judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the parties. Therefore, the
impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a
fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present
petition.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
