IMPORTANT POINT
There is no total prohibition for receiving unregistered document in evidence.

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. During the course of examination of plaintiff No.1, the petitioners/plaintiffs sought to exhibit two Ikrarnamas dated 2.9.87, which was objected by the respondents/defendants stating inter-alia that said Ikrarnamas are compulsorily registrable and it is not duly stamped. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties at that stage held that it is not Ikrarnama but it is conveyance and not admissible in evidence and declined to exhibit the aforestated documents by order dated 27.4.2015.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court declining to exhibit two Ikrarnamas dated 2.9.87 for want of registration and requisite stamp duty, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

3. Mr.Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs, would submit that the order passed by the trial Court runs contrary to proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1908”) and also runs contrary to Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1899”), therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr.Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 5 and 6, would support the impugned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The short question that has cropped up for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in not permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to exhibit two Ikrarnamas dated 02.09.1987 for want of registration and requisite stamp duty.

7. In a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, documents have to be exhibited in accordance with provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC. Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC reads as under:—

“4. Endorsement on documents admitted in evidence.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely:—

(a) the number and title of the suit,

(b) the name of the person producing the documents,

(c) the date on which it was produced, and

(d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.

(2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.”

8. Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC provides that every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of court, which endorsement signed or initialled by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion, on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was placed.

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 has occasioned to classify the objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence in two classes namely: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. It was observed as under:—

“20. ..........O