The court established that the admissibility of documents should be evaluated in subsequent proceedings, not at the stage of taking them on record.

JUDGMENT

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The petitioner-defendant has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Ann. 15) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in civil suit No.120/2014 (Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. Madhav Lal & Ors.) may kindly be reversed and the document i.e. agreement dated 15.12.2009 may be ordered to be taken on record and may be allowed to be exhibited."

3. This Hon'ble Court had passed the following order in Punamchand Jeengar Vs. Satyanarayan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4213/2017 decided on 27.11.2017):

"The petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 21.01.2017 whereby his application dated 02.09.2016 filed under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the Trial Court, while observating as under: -

Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner narrating the facts of the case stated that a categoric reference of the agreement to sell dated 15.12.2009 duly notarised on 21.12.2009 was very much made by the petitioner, while furnishing list of documents and in the written statement. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application cursorily holding interaiia that the same is only a photocopy, which is not admissible in evidence.

Mr. Arora contended that while taking the document on record, the Court is not required to see its admissibility may it be on the ground of the documents being photocopy or for want of registration or payment of proper stamp duty.

Mr. Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application apparently for a reason that the document in question is not original, nevertheless the same is not admissible in evidence on other counts such as lack of registration and payment of appropriate stamp duty.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.

A simple look at the order dated 21.01.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that the Court has cursorily rejected petitioner's application holding that the same is photocopy of the document, which is not admissible in evidence.

In considered opinion of this Court while taking the document on record under Order VIII Rule 1 -A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court is not required to pronounce upon admissibility of the document. Reason given by the Trial Court that the document sought to be placed on record is a photocopy is unsustainable.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner's application dated 02.09.2016 is allowed and the document agreement dated 15.12.2009 is taken on record.

Needless to observe that the respondents' objection regarding its admissiblity would be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law, while marking exhibit.

The respondents shall be at liberty to raise all objections regarding admissibility of the document; namely it being photocopy, want of registration and non-payment of appropriate stamp duty.

It would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the learned Trial Court would decide the respondents'- plaintiffs' objection regarding admissibility of this document at first stage on the next date fixed before it, which is reported as 04.12.2017. On which date, the petitioner may produce original agreement dated 15.12.2009 if any, for facilitating the Trial Court to decide plaintiffs' objection in this regard.

Needless to observe that this Court has not pronounced upon admissibility of the document for want of registration or stamp duty. Any observation made herein shall not come in the way of the Trial Court to decide the same in accordance w