Advocates:
['RAKESH ARORA', '', 'NARESH SINGH', 'SURESH SHRIMALI']

(1 of 33)

[CW-5754/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5754/2018

Baldev Acharya S/o Shri Magniram Acharya, R/o Village Haled,

Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Shiv Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Shobhalal Acharya, R/o

Daroga Mohalla, Veer Sawarkar Chowk, Bhilwara.

2.

Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara Through Its

Secretary

3.

Addl. District And Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7926/2018

Shiv Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Shobha Lal Acharya, R/o Daroga

Mohalla, Veer Sanwarkar Chouk, Bhilwara Raj..

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Baldev Acharya S/o Magniram Acharya, Resident Of

Village Haled, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

2.

Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara Through Its

Secretary.

3.

Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rakesh Arora

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Suresh Shrimali with

Mr. Rishabh Shrimali.

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore for

Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reportable

12/11/2021

1.

These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5754/2018:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ

petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing

an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order

(2 of 33)

[CW-5754/2018]

dated 8.3.2018 (Annx.3) to the extent of declining to

exhibit the document i.e. agreement to sale dated

5.6.1998 (Annx.4) in evidence, may be quashed and the

petitioner may be allowed to exhibit the said documents in

evidence before the learned trial court.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7926/2018:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow

this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or

direction in the nature thereof thereby, the impugned

order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by the

learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil

Suit No.122/2014 while rejecting the objection raised by

the petitioner in regard documents dated 15.02.1971 and

09.09.1988 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the

objection raised by the petitioner may kindly be allowed

and documents dated 15.02.1971 and 09.09.1988 may

kindly be treated not admissible in evidence.”

2.

Both the present petitions are having a common issue i.e.

admissibility of certain documents supporting the sale in a suit for

declaration and permanent injunction.

3.

The impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned

trial court has dealt with admissibility of the three documents,

namely, sale deed dated 15.02.1971 and agreements to sell dated

09.09.1988 & 05.06.1998.

4.

Vide the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed

the admissibility of the aforementioned documents dated

15.02.1971 and 09.09.1988, and thus, the defendant has

challenged the same by filing CWP No.7926/2018; whereas, the

admissibility of the agreement to sell dated 05.06.1998 has been

denied by the learned trial court vide the impugned order, and

thus, the plaintiff has challenged the same in CWP No.5754/2018.

(3 of 33)

[CW-5754/2018]

5.

Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits

that the documents in question do not require registration or

stamping so as to become admissible in evidence.

6.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff, while referring to proviso to

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Registration Act’), tries to impress upon the Court that the

document in question is pertaining to evidence for collateral

purposes, and thus, falls under the exception of mandatory

requirement of registration and stamping.

7.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that at best,

the learned trial court could have directed