The trial Court has discretion to deny document production in a specific performance case; unregistered agreements can serve as evidence if possession was not delivered.

ORDER :

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by defendants No. 1 and 2/petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 5-9-2022 passed by the trial Court whereby the application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 of the CPC and so also the application under section 33 of the Indian STAMP ACT preferred by defendant No. 1 have been rejected.

2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has instituted an action against the defendants for specific performance of contract dated 3-6-2018 executed in his favour by defendant No. 1, for declaration that the sale deed dated 27-12-2021 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land. The defendants No. 1 and 2 have contested the plaintiff’s claim by filing their written statement to the same.

3. During course of proceedings before the trial Court defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 read with Rule 14 of the CPC for directing the plaintiff to produce his income tax return of the year 2019 and the declarations made in the Income Tax Department and the bank submitting that the agreement to sale on the basis of which suit has been instituted is forged and fabricated and thereunder an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid by plaintiff. The plaintiff objected to the said application which has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the suit is for specific performance of contract and at this stage, the documents of income tax and the bank statement are not necessary.

4. The defendant No. 1 also filed an application under section 33 of the Indian STAMP ACT for impounding the agreement to sale dated 3-6-2018 submitting that the same is not registered and has been executed on stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- only hence is deficiently stamped. The plaintiff contested the application by filing his reply to the same. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that in agreement to sale there is no recital of delivery of possession which fact has been stated by defendant No. 1 himself in his application under consideration hence the same was required to be and is written on stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- which is sufficient.

5. Learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 has assailed the impugned order submitting that the agreement to sale is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The same has been executed in respect of property worth Rs. 30,00,000/- upon payment of earnest money of Rs. 13,00,000/-. This factum has been denied by defendants No. 1 and 2 hence discovery and production of documents regarding the income tax returns and other declarations made before the Income Tax Department and bank by plaintiff is necessary. The provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. The agreement was deficiently stamped and was unregistered though the same was required to be registered hence was wholly inadmissible in evidence. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Avinsash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra , (2009) 2 SCC 532 and Arvind Kumar Jain vs. Awnish Saxena and anr. , 2014(4) M.P.L.J. 350, and of this Court in Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd., Indore and anr. vs.. Pankaj Agrawal and anr. , 2014(4) M.P.L.J. 333, Manish Singh Malukani and ors. vs. Hari Prasad Gupta and anr. , Writ Petition No. 7581/2017 decided on 4-7-2022, Narbada Prasad Agrawal vs. Tarun Bhawasar , 2009(1) M.P.L.J. 176, Mukesh Kumar vs.