Jitendra Naal vs Ashok - 2022 Supreme(MP) 386

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Jitendra Naal v. Ashok and others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 5674 of 2022 (I.); Decided on 23.11.2022

Advocates:
Brijesh Garg for petitioner; Vishal Baheti for respondents.

Headnote:
(1) Evidence -- admissibility of document -- exhibition of second copy of agreement bearing original signatures of witnesses sought by defendant -- second copy cannot be treated as photocopy -- trial Court justified in allowing application -- interference not warranted. AIR 2007 SC 1721, AIR 2007 MP 157, 2008 (1) MPJR (SC), 2012 (1) MPLJ 120 and 2016 (2) RN 281 (HC) distinguished. [Para 7]
(2) Stamp Duty -- original agreement duly stamped by plaintiff -- second copy of agreement brought on record by defendant to prove cheating in original agreement -- stamping of same document twice not required -- stamp-duty liable to be paid only once, on original document. [Para 8]
¼1½ lk{; & nLrkost dh xzkg~krk & lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, flfoy okn & oknh ij Ny djus ds fy, djkj esa diViwoZd dfri; 'kCnksa dk mYys[k djus dk vfHkdFku & Áfroknh }kjk lk{khx.k ds ewy gLrk{kj ;qDr djkj dh f}rh; Áfr dk Án'kZu bZfIlr & f}rh; Áfr dks Nk;kfp= ugha ekuk tk ldrk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk iwoksZDr vkosnu eatwj djuk U;k;ksfpr & gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ughaA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 1721] , vkb vkj 2007 ,e ih 157] 2008 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj ¼,l lh½A] 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 120 rFkk 2016 ¼2½ jkŒfuŒ 281 ¼mPp U;kŒ½ ÁHksfnrA ¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ LVkai 'kqYd & ewy djkj oknh }kjk lE;d~ :is.k LVkafir & ewy djkj esa Ny lkfcr djus ds fy, Áfroknh }kjk djkj dh f}rh; Áfr vfHkys[k ij ykbZ xbZ & ,d gh nLrkost dk nks ckj LVkafir fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha & LVkai&'kqYd dsoy ,d ckj] ewy nLrkost ij] lans;A ¼iSjk 8½

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.11.2022 passed in case No. RSC-A/24/2015 by the Principal District Judge, Ratlam whereby the petitioner’s objection regarding admissibility of the document has been rejected and a copy of the agreement dated 02/06/2014 has been allowed to be exhibited.

2. The case of the petitioner is that a civil suit for specific performance of contract has been filed on the basis of an agreement dated 2.6.2011 Ex.P/1. In the aforesaid suit, while cross examining the plaintiff’s witness PW/1 Jitendra, a document, said to be a copy of the agreement Ex.P/1 was sought to be proved which has been allowed to be exhibited by the Trial Court despite an objection by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid document is a photocopy of Ex.P/1, and on Ex.P/1, the petitioner has paid proper stamp duty of more than Rs.11 Lakhs and only after that, it has been exhibited, however, the respondents are trying to bring a document on record which is not duly stamped and which is also the photocopy of the original document. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in allowing the respondents to exhibit the aforesaid document and thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. In support of his submissions, Shri Brijesh Garg, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani reported as AIR 2007 SC 1721 as also the decisions rendered in the cases of Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya reported as 2008 (I) MPJR (SC) 1; Haji Mohd. Islam and another v. Asgar Ali and another reported as AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 157; Ratanlal s/o Bagdu v. Kishanlal s/o Mangilal and others reported as 2012(1) MPLJ 120; Raghuveer Singh and others v. Smt. Ramasundari and others reported as 2016 (2) RN 281 (HIGH COURT.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the document which has been allowed to be proved by the trial Court is not the photocopy but is the second copy of the original agreement Ex.P/1, having original signature of S.K. Jain who is a witness to the aforesaid document, which is also apparent from Ex.P/1 on which also, the said witness S.K. Jain has signed. It is further submitted that when the aforesaid document was prepared, a copy of the same was also given to the respondent/defendant and it was originally signed by the said witness S.K. Jain and the respondent as well. Counsel has also submitted that in the original document Ex.P/1, below the signature of the respondent, the petitioner has fraudulently mentioned the words 'power of attorney', in order to cheat and in such circumstances, it would be necessary for the respondents to bring on record the second true copy of the document as there is no reference in the original document itself that the respondent Ashok S/o Manaklal Pipada signed the document as a power of attorney holder and the stamp was also purchased in the individual capacity. Thus, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in exhibiting the docuement and no interference is called for.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the record, it is apparent that the documents which is sought to be proved by the defendant is the copy of the Agreement Ex.P/1 dated 2.6.2014, and it is contended by the defendant that certain interpolations have been made in the original document whereas, in the second copy of the said document in which it is stated that the parties have signed in original, no such interpolations are visible. Copy of the document proved, which has been allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court to be exhibited has also been shown to this Court for its comparison with the original document and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document