1. The order passed in this writ petition shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No. 5047/2008, 504812008 & 371412008. As the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar and for the sake of record the facts of W.P. No. 5051/2008 are taken into consideration.

2. The challenge put forth by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 7.5.2007, 31.1.2008 and 24.3.2008 respectively. By order dated 7.5.2007 an application under' section 35 Stamp Act, 1899 filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. Whereas the application under section 33 of th Act of 1899 has been rejected. And by order dated 24.3.2008 the right of petitioner-defendant to lead evidence has been closed.

3. The facts noted from the petition briefly are that the respondent plaintiff instituted a civil suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the petitioner, a tenant, has defaulted in payment in rent. The petitioner challenging the ownership opposed the relief on the ground that he is in possession of suit property not as a tenant but by virtue of an agreement of sale executed in favour of the petitioner by the erstwhile

owners. The petitioner sought to prove the agreement dated 24.12.1993. An objection was raised by the respondent by filing an application under section 35 of the Act of 1899. Where of an application under section 33 of the Act of 1899 was filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the defect.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 7.5.2007 declined to permit the petitioner to prove unregistered instrument in the following terms:

izfroknh lkE;kf'kndk iz;kst vFkkZr~ viuk oknxzLr LFkku ij viuk vkf/kiR; n'kkZus ds fy, mDr nLrkost ij izn'kZ vafdr dj mls izekf.kr djkuk pkgrk gS fdarq Lo;a izfroknh ds dFkukuqlkj mlds }kjk oknxzLr LFkku >ydu flag dks fdjk;k vnk djrk FkkA vuqca/k i= ds vuqlkj ;g oknxzLr deku ds vkf/koiR; esa ;gka ,slk mldk dFku ugha gSA

izfroknh dk ,slk Hkh dFku gS fd og dfFkr fodz; vuqca/k i= dk laHko LVkai ,oa mldh isukYVh vnk djus ds fy, rS;kj gSA

vr% izLrqr nLrkost tks fd ,d lkns dkxt ij gS /kkjk&17 jftLVsª'ku ,DV ds rgr jftLVMZ ugha gS] leqfpr :Ik ls LVkafir ugha gS] blfy, /kkjk&35 LVkai ,DV ds rgr lk{; esa xzká ;ksX; ugha gSaA vr% izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkost in izn'kZ dafMdk vfe djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tkrh gSA

izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;k; n`"Vkar ds rF; bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA ;gka rks izfroknh ds dFku vuqlkj mlds }kjk >ydu flag dks oknxzLr dk fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;kA

izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkar ls izfroknh dks dksbZ ykHk ugha feyrk gSA

rnuqlkj oknh dh vkifRr ,oa vkosnu /kkjk&35 LVkai ,DV ds vuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA

1 Similarly, the trial Court while dealing with the application under section 33 record the following finding vide its order dated 31.1.2008.

oknh us ;g okn çfroknh ds fo#) fu”dklu ,oa fdjk;k olwyh ckor~ çLrqr fd;k gSA ftlesa oknxzr LFkku dk jftLVMZ foØ;i= fnukad 7-12-1994 ç-ik- 1 ds }kjk egsaæflag ls Ø; djuk crk;k x;k gSA çfroknh }kjk dgk x;k gS fd mlus oknxzLr LFkku vquca/k foys[k fnukad 24-12-1993 ds }kjk Ø; djus dk vuqca/k foys[k leqfpr LVkai ij us gksdj lkns dkxt ij gksus vkSj jftLVªs’ku ,DV dh /kkjk 17 ds rgr jftLVMZ u gksus ls mls lk{; esa xzká djus ckor~ çfroknh }kjk çLrqr vkosnu /kkjk&35 LVkai ,DV dk fnukad 7-5-2007 dks fujLr fd;k x;k gSA

tks çfroknh }kjk 33 LVkai ,DV ds rgr mä dk FkkA vuqca/k foys[k dks oknxzLr LFkku ij viuk vkf/kiR; Li”V djus] laikf’oZd ç;kstu ds fy, ifj:) ¼bekm.M½ djkus ds fy, çLrqr fd;k gS] fdarq mä foys[k fdlh LVkai ij ugha gS vkSj ,d lkns dkxt dk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa çLrqr vkosnu Lohdkj ;ksX; ugah gSA vr% vekU; dj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

Assailing the orders, it is urged, that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plea of the petitioner-defendant to admit the document for collateral purpose. It is further contended that the petitioner is even willing and ready to pay the duty. The respondent-plaintiff on its turn has supported the impugned orders.

5. Heard the learne