The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of amendments at any stage of the proceedings, the necessity of amendments for determining the real questions in controversy, and the obligation to examine and impound instruments not duly stamped. The judgment also emphasizes the liberal approach to amendments and the need to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner assailing the order dated 08/11/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.10/2008 whereby the Misc. Application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for making amendment in the written statement has been allowed on a cost of Rs.3000/-.

2. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner as per the material available on record is that the suit for specific performance was filed in the year 2008 wherein the written statement was filed by the defendant-respondent on 02/04/2008 and on 19/08/2008, issues were framed. On 20/01/2010, the disputed agreement was marked as an exhibit. On 11/03/2010, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner stood completed. It was only on 21/05/2011 that the defendant-respondent filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC whereby it was submitted that the document in question, i.e. the agreement, is an unregistered document as well as insufficiently stamped and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. As such, amendment to this effect was sought in the written statement which reads as under:-

^^;g fd oknxzLr bdjkjukek jktLFkku LVkWEi ,DV 1998 ds vkfVZdy 5 ds vUrxZr vi;kZIr eqnzkad ij fu"ikfnr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k lk{; esa iढ+us ;ksX; ugha gS blh Ádkj mDr vf/kfu;e ds vkfVZdy 21 ds v/khu oknxzLr bdjkjukek viathd`r gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij Hkh oknh dk orZeku okn mDr bdjkjukes dh fofufnZ"V ikyuk fd;s tkus ds vuqrks"k ÁkIr djus ds fy;s fof/kd #i ls iks"kuh; ugha gSA**

3. The case of the defendant-respondent as per the material available on record is that the amendment sought by him in the written statement involves point of law and is vital, in the interest of justice, for proper adjudication of the case and comes within the purview of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

4. The learned trial court allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 08.11.2017, with a cost of Rs.3000/-, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the present writ petition should be allowed as the application of the defendant-respondent was filed at a belated stage without any legitimate and sufficient explanation, especially when the issue was purely legal and was in in the knowledge of the defendantrespondent. It was contended that the application was belated on account of the fact that the agreement in question was already marked as exhibit on 20/01/2010. Learned counsel submitted that as per the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagdish Vs. Smt. Deep Shika Gar: 2013(3) RLW 2562 (Raj.) as well as the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal: (2006) 11 SCC 331; Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Ors.: (2009) 2 SCC 409 and The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Modern Tent House & Ors.: (2017) 8 SCC 567, it has time and again been held that in a suit for specific performance, even if the agreement is insufficiently stamped but if admitted in evidence, no objection or amendment can be permitted at a later stage. Learned counsel contends that the defendant-respondent cannot turn around and contend that the suit document is inadmissible in evidence, specially when the same is marked as an exhibit. Learned counsel further submit that Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 restricts the defendant-respondent from questioning a document after its admission in evidence by the Court.

6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per provisions of Section 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and in the facts & circumstances of the case and as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment can be requested at any stage and in the case in hand, the objections raised and the amendment sought are in conformity with the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. He further submitted th