MILAP CHANDRA, J.-This revison petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned District Judge Churu dated August 28, 1987 by which an unstamped and unregistered document, paper No. 36-C 2/3, has been admitted in the evidence on the ground that it can be used for collaterial purpose. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit against the defendant non petitioners for the specific performance of an agreement for sale and in the alternative, for refund of Rs. 23,000/- with interest. The defendants admitted in their written-statements that they were indebted to the plaintiff and had executed an agreement. Their defence, is that they had repaid the substantial part of the loan by mortgaging their 25 bighas of land with Phula Ram Beniwal DW. 3 for Rs. 10,000/- & by selling their house to Tekchand for Rs. 7,000/-. On 1.3.85 Phularam D.W. 3 was produced by the defendants. During his statement, his original Bahi containing the entry regarding the said transaction of mortgage of agriculture land was tendered and its photo-stat copy, Paper No. C. 36/2-3 was filed. When it was being exhibited , objection was raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that it could not be exhibited for want of registration and requisite stamp. The learned District Judge directed the defendant to move an application, defered the statement of the witness and put "P.W. 3/Ex. A-l" on the said photo stat copy. The same day, the learned counsel for the defendants moved application," paper No. B-37 Praying that the said photo stat copy be exhibited and admitted in evidence. The plaintiff filed his reply, paper No. B 38./1&2, seriously opposing it. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Judge Churu allowed the application by his order dated 28.8 87, holding that the document can be admitted in evidence for the collateral purpose, i.e., to show that the loan was taken by the defendants from Phoola Ram D.W. 3 to pay to the plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has contended that the learned District Judge, Churu has committed illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction to hold that an unstamped document can be read in evidence for a collateral purpose. He further contended that the Khata containing the said entries whose photo stat copy is paper No. 31 C/2-3. is a mortgage-deed and is not admissible in evidence for want of registration also. He further contended that in view of the provisions of Sec 35, Stamp Act, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose and it can be admitted in evidence on payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty.

4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant non petitioners that the admissibility of the said document cannot now be challenged after it has been exhibited. He further contended that the document has not been executed in between the parties and therefore, there arises no question of the payment of any stamp duty & penalty and it can be used for collateral pur-pose as provided under Sec. 49, Registration Act.

5. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners, the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner contended that mere marking of the document by putting "P.W. 3/Ex. A-l does not mean that the document has been admitted in evidence within the meaning of Sec. 36, Stamp Act. He further contended that if it would have been so, the learned trial court would not have directed the defendants to move an application for seeking order regarding its admissibility and the defendants would not have move the said application "paper No. B-37". He also urged that the said remark "P.W. 3/Ex.A.l" was put on the document for its identification only and not after judicial determination regarding its admissibility in evidence. He relied upon Bherulal v. Bhanwarsingh (1).

6. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document