PRATAP KUMAR RAY
SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY – Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL – Respondent
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
( 2 ) IN this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, only question has been raised that once any document is admitted in evidence and marked as 'exhibit', subsequently such order whether could be recalled for impounding the instrument in absence of the payment of proper stamp-duty. By the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2005 of this application passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat in Title Suit No. 4 of 1999, learned Trial Court refused to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003, as per prayer of defendant-petitioner thereto for impounding the agreement, which was exhibited and marked dispensing with formal proof of document.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that as the concerned document being an instrument was not properly stamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence and as such prayer to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003 whereby and whereunder the concerned document was admitted in evidence dispensing with the formal proof of the document and marked as 'exhibit". To adjudicate the point, the Court need not to detain itself as there i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.