Telangana High Court
Sri Abhijeet A. Shah vs Mrs. Sreeja Chadha on 30 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1760 OF 2024
ORDER:
This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India assails order, dated 13.03.2024, whereby I.A.No.63 of 2024
in O.S.No.218 of 2022 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.63 of 2024 under
Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 with the prayer
to impound the Rental deed dated 01.10.2020. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that whole purpose behind such prayer
was to use the document in evidence at appropriate stage. It is
submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting the prayer of
amendment on the ground that even, if such document is
impounded and properly stamped, it cannot be admitted in
evidence being an unregistered document.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that said
document dated 01.10.2020 (Rental deed), admittedly, an
unregistered document and needs registration. However, the
petitioner intended to use the said document for collateral
purpose. Thus, the trial Court has committed an error in
disallowing the said application.
4. I have heard him at length.
5. The trial Court in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order
clearly stated that whole defence of petitioner/defendant is based
on Rental deed and therefore, it cannot be treated to be used for
collateral purpose. During the course of hearing, despite
repeated query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out in pleading from the Civil Revision Petition to
show that said finding of the trial Court was called in question.
The trial Court in this regard has taken a plausible view, which
does not require any interference.
6. The operative portion of paragraph No.8 of the impugned
order shows that singular reason for not impounding the
document is that the document is, admittedly, an unregistered
document. Thus, the trial Court opined that no useful purpose
would be served, if Rental deed is impounded. This question is
no more res integra. In Shyam Narayan Prasad v.Krishna
Prasad 1, the Apex Court held as under:
(2018) 7 SCC 646
"It is clear from the above judgment that the best
evidence of the contents of the document is the
document itself and as required under Section 91 of the
Evidence Act the document itself has to be produced to
prove its contents. But having regard to Section 49 of
the Registration Act, any document which is not
registered as required under law, would be inadmissible
in evidence and cannot, therefore, be produced and
proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Since
Exhibit P2 is an unregistered document, it is
inadmissible in evidence and as such it can neither be
proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act nor any
oral evidence can be given to prove its contents.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly discarded the
exchange deed at Exhibit P2."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Apex
Court, it cannot be said that the trial Court has taken an
incorrect decision.
8. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
30.08.2024
nvl
