A court may exercise discretion to take a xerox copy of a document on record under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC, provided it is expressly directed that the document shall not be exhibited or relied upon until the original is produced and all legal requirements regarding stamp duty and registration are met.

Order on Board

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by Second District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.374-A/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short, the CPC) has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are defendants No.1 to 4 before the trial court where the present respondent No.1 is prosecuting a civil suit for specific performance of contract. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit land Khasra No.616/1 Area 0.284 Hect./0.70 Acre, situated at Juna Bilaspur (Jacob Chall), Tehsil and District Bilaspur, is recorded in revenue records in the names of husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 4. Out of total 0.70 Acre of land, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 4 namely Surya Prakash Reddy entered into an agreement with the mother of plaintiff Smt. Chandrakanti Bajpai to sale 8720 Sq.ft. of land on 31.12.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.19,11,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.15,11,000/- was given as advance. Subsequently, Surya Prakash Reddy died and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- more was obtained by the defendants time to time and thus the defendants have already obtained Rs.21,11,000/-. Subsequent to that, the agreement was renewed and its sale consideration was enhanced up to Rs.29,50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Since the mother of plaintiff was suffering from various ailment, the subsequent agreement dated 29.09.2023 was executed with the plaintiff.

It is also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had served a legal notice to the defendants on 10.10.2017 and 24.12.2024 and requested for registration of the sale deed. The conditions of agreement was again renewed and sale consideration was again enhanced on 10.03.2025 which was extended up to total remaining amount of Rs.9,05,000/-. Since the defendants could not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed civil suit for specific performance of contract. It is also the case of the petitioners that during pendency of the civil suit, the parties entered into a compromise and the defendants were ready to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and in furtherance thereof a sale deed was executed by the defendants on 04.06.2025, however, the Sub Registrar considered that the sale deed was undervalued and referred it for proper valuation of the property and for stamp duty to Collector Stamp by invoking the powers under Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1889 , where the matter is pending for its consideration. Before the trial court, a compromise application was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which was considered by the trial court on 05.05.2025 and examined the genuineness and validity of said compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. Subsequently, on 10.05.2025 the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat where the Bench No.7 of Lok Adalat, Bilaspur, rejected the compromise application holding that the terms of compromise is suspicious under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thereafter, the plaintiffs evidence was recorded on 03.01.2026 and thereafter defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC alongwith the xerox copy of sale deed which was executed by them on 04.06.2025. The trial court vide its order dated 18.03.2026 rejected the application filed by the defendants on the ground that the defendants have filed xerox copy of sale deed and the said sale deed itself is not complete and dispute with respect to its valuation and payment of stamp duty is under consideration before the Collector, Stamp. The said order dated 18.03.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants h