ORDER

1. The parties are at loggerheads on the question of legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 5.3.2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under section 35 of Indian Stamp Act has been rejected.

2. It is an admitted fact that earlier the time of examination of plaintiff’s witnesses before the Court below, a document was produced by the plaintiff projecting it to be an agreement to sale dated 14.10.2010. The said agreement was exhibited before the Court below in presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. Thereafter, on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 rule 3 CPC, the trial Court had passed an order dated 5.2.2016 and found that the said agreement to sell is not properly stamped. Thereafter, the order dated 5.2.2016 had been set aside by this Court vide order dated 31.8.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.1309/2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has erred in not holding that the agreement to sale being not properly stamped is not admissible in evidence, whereas earlier vide order dated 5.2.2016 the trial Court itself had found that the document is not prope