Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 14560
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SHUBHA MEHTA
BADRI NARAYAN S/O SHRI JAGDISH NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
VIMAL KUMAR SOGANI S/O SHRI VEER CHAND JAIN – Respondent
CW/12971/2020
Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.
Headnote:
STAMP ACT - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT - [Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to re-examine the order or issue.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the trial court which had admitted a document in evidence despite it being insufficiently stamped. The petitioner argued that the document was inadmissible as it was not properly stamped and that the trial court had erred in admitting it.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Javer Chand V/s Pukhraj Surana and Sirikonda Madhava Rao Vs. N. Hemalatha & Ors. to hold that once a document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to re-examine the order or issue.
Issues: Whether a document that has been admitted in evidence can be challenged on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Javer Chand V/s Pukhraj Surana and Sirikonda Madhava Rao Vs. N. Hemalatha & Ors. to hold that once a document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to re-examine the order or issue.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the trial court admitting the document in evidence.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12971/2020
Badri Narayan S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Shastri Nagar At Present R/o Krishna Colony,
Tonk,tehsil And District Tonk
----Petitioner
Versus
Vimal Kumar Sogani S/o Shri Veer Chand Jain, R/o Nagar
Fort, Tehsil Devoli, District Tonk
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Ram Babu Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Ankush Sharma
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
06/01/2023
;kph dh vksj ls ;g fjV ;kfpdk] fo}ku vfrfjDr ofj"B flfoy
U;k;k/kh'k] Vksad }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 52@2016 ¼38@13½ esa ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 19-12-2019] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh@v;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i=
fnukafdr 9-10-2018 ckcr~ ys[ki=@bdjkjukek izn'kZ ,-&8 dks iznf'kZr ugha fd,
tkus (De-exhibit) fd;s tkus] Lohdkj fd;k x;k ,oa iwoZ esa blh ys[ki= ij
izn'kZ Mkyus dh vuqefr fn, tkus ckcr~ ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 7-9-2017 dh ikyuk
esa iznf'kZr gks pqds nLrkost dks De-exhibit fd;k x;k] ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh
xbZ gSA
rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj ls gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa
v;kph@oknh }kjk ,d okn i= ckcr~ LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr
okn esa ;kph@izfroknh us /kkjk 65 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr ,d
izkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-8-2017 ¼vuqyXud&3½ izLrqr fd;kA bl izkFkZuk i= dk
mRrj v;kph@oknh }kjk fnukad 7-9-2017 ¼vuqyXud&4½ izLrqr fd;k x;kA
(2 of 5)
[CW-12971/2020]
rnqijkar fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fnukad 7-9-2017 ¼vuqyXud&5½
ikfjr djrs gq, mDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k x;k ,oa ys[ki= ¼bdjkjukek dh
QksVks izfr½ ij izn'kZ ,&8 Mkyk x;kA blds i'pkr~ fnukad 9-10-2018 dks
oknh@v;kph dh vksj ls ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj mDr ys[ki= ds i;kZIr :i
ls LVkfEir vkSj iathd`r ugha gksus ds dkj.k lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gksus dk
vfHkdFku djrs gq, bls iznf'kZr ugha fd, tkus (De-exhibit) fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk
dh xbZA ftldk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkykSP;
vkns'k fnukad 19-12-2019 ikfjr djrs gq, ys[ki= dks iznf'kZr ugha fd, tkus
(De-exhibit) fd, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fjV
;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
;kfpdk ds dze esa nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk x;kA
;kph@izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkykSP; vkns'k fnuakd 19-12-2019 loZFkk fof/kfo:)]
euekuk rFkk fof/k ds lqLFkkfir fl)kUrksa ds fo:)gSA mudk rdZ gS fd fof/k dk
;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd dksbZ ys[ki= ;fn ,d ckj lk{; esa iznf'kZr vFkkZr~
Exhibit gks tkrk gS rks mls iqu% De-exhibit ugha fd;k tk ldrk] fQj pkgs ;g
ys[ki= xyr :i ls gh iznf'kZr D;ksa ugha gqvk gksA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us rks vkykSP; vkns'k esa U;kf;d fofu'p; 2019 Mh,uts
¼,llh½ lhts i`"B 907 izdk'k lkgw cuke lqokyky ,oa vU; dks loZFkk xyr :i
ls i<k gS rFkk bl fofu'p; esa tks fl)kUr fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] mlds foijhr
fu"d"kZ fudkyk gSA mudk fuosnu gS fd ;kph@izfroknh dh vksj ls ,d vU;
izkFkZuk i= Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj bl rF; dks /;ku esa
yk;k x;k] fdUrq blds ckotwn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk visf{kr lq/kkj ugha
fd;k x;k rFkk vkns'k fnuakd 4-3-2020 ikfjr dj fn;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS
fd /kkjk 65 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr
izkFkZuk i= ij ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 7-9-2017 ¼vuqyXud&5½ vafre gks pqdk gSA
,slh fLFkfr esa vc ys[ki= dks De-exhibit fd, tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k ikfjr
ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk vkykSP; vkns'k fof/kfo:) ,oa euekuk gksus ds dkj.k
(3 of 5)
[CW-12971/2020]
vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa mudh vksj ls fuEufyf[kr
U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd, x;s %&
1- 1961 AIR (SC) 1655 Javer Chand V/s Pukhraj Surana
2- Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on dated 14 November 20122 in
the matter of SLP (c) No. 14882-14883/2022 Sirikonda Madhava Rao Vs. N.
Hemalatha & Ors.
mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;ksX; vf/koDrk v;kph@oknh ds
fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk
iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 7-9-2017 }kjk ys[ki=@bdjkjukek dks lk{; esa
iznf'kZr djus dh vuqefr nh xbZA mDr ys[ki= ewy
