Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 18.10.2011 whereby document Annex. 3 dated 11.5.1969 was accepted for evidence by the trial Court for collateral purpose.

2. As per facts of the case the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit and entire claim was made in the plaint on the basis of a hand-written letter dt. 11.5.1969 on a plain paper. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under O. 13 R. 3, CPC, read with Secs. 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Secs. 33 and 35 of Indian Stamps Act before the trial Court.

3. In the application it is submitted that document written on plain paper dated 11.5.1969 is neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, the said document may be rejected. The trial Court allowed the said application filed by the petitioner and document dated 11.5.1969 filed by the plaintiff-respondent was held to be inadmissible in evidence.

4. The plaintiff-respondent preferred writ petition before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4752/2008 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 16.12.2008. However, it was kept upon for the plaintiff-respondent, if he so desired, to make a prayer with regard to the document for collateral purpose before the trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court moved an application on 9.1.2009 before the trial Court praying that the document dated 11.5.1969 may be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes for establishing possession etc. of the plaintiff-respondent over plot No. 47-B.

5. The petitioner filed reply to the above application. Thereafter, the trial Court passed an order on 18.10.2011 by which the application filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and document dated 11.5.1969 has been admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the said order on the ground that the document dated 11.5.1969 cannot be treated to be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose also because it is not properly stamped and registered as required under Section 49 of the Registration Act. But, the learned trial Court allowed the application ignoring the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489, therefore, it is abundantly clear that trial Court has clearly erred in law in passing the impugned order for admitting the document dated 11.5.1969 in evidence for collateral purpose. Therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the law on the point and side-tracked the case cited by the petitioner, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489 which consciously goes to show that provisions of Section 49 are applicable to suits for specific performance of contract. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff-respondent has claimed right/title and possession over the plot in question solely on the basis of document in question and nowhere named the document for collateral purpose, therefore, the order impugned suffers from patent illegality.

7. Learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that it was incumbent upon the trial Court to examine the nature of the suit because the plaintiff-respondent himself asserted his title as owner, therefore, there is no question admissibility of document dated 11.5.1969 for collateral purpose because it is not even case of the plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and order impugned may be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with law because document dated 11.5.1969 was filed only to show possession, therefore, learned trial Court admitted the said document. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document