Documents which are not receivable in law can not be relied by court.

(This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1.9.2005 in IA No.127 of 2005 in O.S.No.128 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.)

The defendants 1 to 9 in the suit are the revision petitioners. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. The defendants filed proof affidavit along with eight documents and these eight documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8. The documents are said to be the unregistered lease deeds in respect of the agricultural lands. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. praying for rejection of the said documents, marked as Exs.B.1 to B.8. The trial court, relying upon Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act and having come to the conclusion that in respect of the agricultural lands, if lease period is beyond one year and is in writing, it requires registration and in the present case, all the eight documents were unregistered, has allowed the application on the basis that the documents are inadmissible in evidence. It is against the said order of the learned trial Judge, the defendants 1 to 9 have filed this revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial court, having received the documents and marked as Exs.B.1 to B.8, ought not to have rejected the documents at the threshold. The contents of the documents should have been considered at least for collateral purpose. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another). That was the case where in respect of criminal trial, detailed order was passed regarding the admissibility of certain documents. It was dealing with such a situation, the Apex Court has held that at the time of final stage of passing the judgment, the admissibility or otherwise of the documents should have been decided. The learned counsel, relying upon the judgment, would also contend that the reasoning given by the Honourable Supreme Court would also equally apply to all other cases, including the civil case. The learned counsel, in this regard, would rely upon paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which runs as follows:

"14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objections relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)"

A reference to the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court would show that the Apex Court makes it clear that in cases where objection raised relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said judgment is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, if the documents, which have been marked based on the proof affidavit as Exs.B.1 to B.8, are inadmissible in evidence, they cannot be received at all. There is no question of saying that the contents of the documents can be relied on for collateral purpose.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would