1. This writ petition by defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.3.2012 of the trial Court rejecting an application filed under Order 8 rule 1(3) of CPC with prayer to take on record the document dated 16.1.1997 (Ex.P-7).

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for declaration and injunction pending consideration and mesne profit inter alia contending that the plaintiffs hold the title of the suit land and are in possession and therefore sought a further relief for injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant to interfere in possession.

3. Defendant/petitioner filed written statement inter alia contending that the land described in document dated 16.1.1997 including the suit land has been relinquished by the plaintiffs in his favour by executing the aforesaid document and since then the defendant/petitioner is in possession and the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit property.

4. Plaintiff No.1 filed examination-in-chief under Order 18 rule 4 of CPC. During the course of cross-examination, defendant sought leave of the Court to confront the plaintiff No.1 with the aforesaid document dated 16.1.1997. However, objection was raised that the questioned document is not stamped and registered and therefore not admissible.

5. Per contra, the defendant contended that in view of Order 13 rule 1 (3) of CPC, since the plaintiff No.1 in para 4 of his examination-in-chief has admitted the aforesaid document, therefore, in the cross-examination, the document can be confronted to the plaintiff No.1 and the rigour of Order 13 rule 1 of CPC shall not come in the way.

6. Trial Court rejected the application upholding the objection with the observation that the document is on a plain paper, there is no mention of details of property and nature of the document, the same is neither stamped nor registered, therefore, such kind of alleged transfer is not in conformity with the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and accordingly, rejected the application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant taking exception to the order impugned contends that under Order 13 rule 1(3) of CPC, which is quoted as under :-

“Order XIII – Production, Impounding and Return of documents

(1) … … …

(2) … … ...

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents—

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

the petitioner has right to confront respondent/ plaintiff No.1 with the document admitted by him in his examination-in-chief and the objection related to non admissibility of the document for want of payment of stamp duty and registration is of no consequence. Therefore, trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner/defendant to confront the plaintiff with the document in cross-examination.

8. Per contra, Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff No.1 contends that as a matter of fact, there is no admission in para 4 of the deposition of the plaintiff No.1. That apart, the respondents/plaintiffs have made a claim of right to be in possession by virtue of alleged document. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have relinquished the property in his favour. The observation of the trial Court that neither the details of the properties allegedly been relinquished nor the nature of the transfer is spelled out in the document, has substantial bearing on the question whether a mere scribbling on a plain piece of paper can tantamount to either relinquishment or sale or any other mode of conveyance under Transfer of Property Act to claim legal possession over the suit property. It is contended that the assertion of lawful right to hold the possession by the defendant since rests upon the alleged document, unless it is properly stamped and registered as per the Ind