IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 6426 of 2024 GOVIND SINGH Versus MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pritam Raman Giriya, learned counsel for the petitioner through VC.

Shri Mayank Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/state.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 18.11.2024, challenging the order dated 16.03.2023, whereby, the trial court deciding the objection raised by the petitioner has permitted the respondent no.1/plaintiff to mark the exhibit of agreement to sale which was insufficiently stamped and unregistered.

The court made a note that the aforesaid objection shall be considered before passing of the judgment.

On 04.12.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to apprise this court about the present status of the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the said document has been exhibited. He further submits that the trial court has committed error in deferring the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH decision on the objection raised by the petitioner that the documents which was said to be exhibited was inadmissible as it was insufficiently stamped.

In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Javer Chand and Ors Vs. Pukhraj Surana reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Rattan (dead) Vs. Bajrang Lal and Ors reported in (1978) 3 SCC 236. He has referred certain observation by the Apex Court in the case of Javer (supra), where it has been held that whether the question as to the admissibility of the documents is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the court rightly or wrongly decides to admit the document on the evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed.

He further referred para no.6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rattan (Supra).

In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 16.03.2023 and the present petition was filed on 18.11.2024 after more than one and half years. In column D regarding delay, he has mentioned that there is no delay in filing the present petition and the petition is well within limitation. The documents has already been exhibited and the court has not decided the objection but has simply deferred that the said objection shall be decided before passing the suit.

The judgments which have been relied by the petitioner have observations that whenever such objection regarding admissibility on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH ground that the documents being insufficiently stamped is raised, the same should be decided then and there but none of the judgments says that once it has been admitted or has been exhibited, the admission would be illegal.

In para no.6 of the judgment in the case of Ram Rattan (supra) is relevant to quote:-

"When the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection having been raised by the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and for want of registration, it was obligatory upon the learned trial judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and decide the objection in accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This, however, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided-, it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of