IMPORTANT POINT
Suit for Perpetual/Permanent Injunction – Partition deed can be relied upon to the extent of collateral purpose, subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, and proof of relevancy.

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-6) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Makrana District Nagaur (‘Trial Court’) in Civil Original No.120/12 CIS No.111/19, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of ‘CPC’, was partly allowed. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-6) may kindly order to be quashed and set aside qua the extent of reject of application to take on record the family partition deed and further direction may kindly be issued to take on record the said partition deed for collateral purposes.

Any other appropriate writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fir and proper may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. Succinctly stated facts of this petition are that the private respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for Perpetual/Permanent Injunction (Annex-1) before the learned Trial Court while praying that the Municipal Board, Makrana be restrained from issuing any Patta of the land situated in Khasras Nos. 388, 388/1 and 388/2 in favour of the present petitioners or any other person(s). A written statement was filed by the present petitioners (Annex-2) while denying the averments made in the suit and urged for its rejection. During pendency of the suit, the present petitioners filed an application (Annex-3) under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code [‘CPC’] in order to bring on record certain documents including the partition deed (Annex-4) dated 01.08.2011 along with Nikahnama and certificate of Shijra Khandan (Family Pedigree) for exhibiting the same in the evidence of the defendants to which, reply dated 19.12.2024 (Annex-5) was filed by the private respondent.

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-6) partly allowed the application filed by the present petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of ‘CPC’ and refused to take on record the partition deed of the present petitioners; and aggrieved by the order impugned to the extent, it refused to take on record the partition deed, the petitioners have filed this present petition.

4. Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, the learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court, while deciding the application filed by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 ‘CPC’ for taking on record the partition deed, has failed to consider the scope of Order VIII of ‘CPC’ which empowers the court to take on record the documents at the least for collateral purposes. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed an error while not allowing the application filed by the petitioners in toto while observing that the partition deed is not a registered deed and, therefore, the same cannot be taken on record in view of the provisions enshrined under Indian Registration Act, 1908. He further submitted that un-registered document having value of more than Rs.100/- is not admissible in the evidence, until and unless the same is registered with the competent authority, but the learned Trial Court failed to take this aspect into consideration that the partition deed, which is not a registered deed, though is not admissible in evidence but the same can be used for collateral purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner for these submissions have placed reliance on Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and Anr. v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar [LL 2021 SC 530].

5. Mr. Avin Chhangani, the learned counsel representing the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is the duty