Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Alok Kumar Verma vs Anil David And Others" on 7 January, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
S
or proceedings
L.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
N
and Registrar's
o
order with
Signatures
07.01.2023 CLR No. 1 of 2023
With
Stay Application No. 1 of 2023
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The present proposed Civil Revision has
been filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated
22.09.2022, passed by the learned District
Judge, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 02 of
2017, "Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs.
Anil David and Others", by which, the learned
Trial Court has directed marking of exhibit on
the document bearing Paper No. 273C, Deed
of Appointment of New Trustees, filed by the
plaintiff, and, has rejected the objections,
taken by the present revisionist-defendant
no. 3 against the same.
2. Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel
for the revisionist.
3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the
revisionist, submitted that the respondent
no.1-plaintiff instituted a Suit (Original Suit
No. 25 of 2013, New No. 02 of 2017) alleging
therein that the defendant no. 4 had executed
a "Deed of Appointment of New Trustees"
dated 25.10.2008, registered on 26.10.2008,
and on the basis of the said Deed, according to
the plaintiff, the suit property is owned by the
plaintiff.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, submitted
that on the basis of the pleadings, Issues have
been framed. Issue no. 1 has been framed to
the effect that whether the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property on the basis of the
said Deed dated 25.10.2008, and, Issue no. 4
has been framed to the effect that whether the
said Deed dated 25.10.2008, regarding the
immovable property, is a transfer deed?
5. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, submitted
that the Paper No. 273C is a copy of Deed of
Appointment of New Trustees, dated
25.10.2008. He further submitted that plaintiff
is claiming his ownership through the said
Deed. However, the said Deed is insufficiently
stamped. He further submitted that the said
Deed should be impounded. He argued that in
the facts of the present case, evidence is
required to determine the nature of the said
document dated 25.10.2008, therefore, it is
reasonable to defer the admissibility of the
said document for insufficient stamp duty at
the time of final decision in the present suit.
6. In support of the said submissions, Mr.
Piyush Garg, Advocate has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Z. Engineers Construction Private Limited
and Another vs. Bipin Bihari Behera and
Others, (2020) 4 SCC 358.
7. Admit.
8. Issue notice to the respondent no. 1 and
the respondent no. 4.
9. Steps to be taken within three days.
10. List this case on 16.02.2023.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, effect and operation of the impugned
order dated 22.09.2022 are stayed till the next
date of listing.
12. It is clarified that the stay order will not
be extended on the next date only on the
request of the revisionist.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
07.01.2023
Shiksha
