Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
NAHAR SINGH AND ORS – Respondent
CW 16500/2017
DOCUMENT ADMISSIBILITY - REGISTRATION - STAMP DUTY - [CW-16500/2017]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The defendants objected to the admissibility of two documents, claiming they were not sufficiently stamped and registered. The trial court rejected the objection and marked the documents as exhibits for collateral purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court's order was not perverse and that the documents in question could be marked as provisional exhibits on record. The petitioners were at liberty to dispute the admissibility of the documents at the time of final arguments or at an appropriate stage.
Issues: Whether the documents in question were required to be stamped and registered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Baldev Acharya Vs. Shiv Kumar Acharya, which held that to prevent the derailing of a trial, the court can mark objected documents as exhibits subject to objections being decided at the final stage. The court also noted that the procedure suggested in Bipin Shantilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat & Anr. would not cause prejudice to the parties and would not add to their misery or expenses.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The order dated 31.8.2017 was modified to the extent that the documents in question were permitted to be marked as provisional exhibits on record. The petitioners were at liberty to dispute the admissibility of the documents at the time of final arguments or at an appropriate stage.
(1 of 9)
[CW-16500/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16500/2017
1.
Mahendra Singh Son Of Late Bharmal, Resident Of Malsar,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
2.
Smt. Shanti Wife Of Late Bharmal, Resident Of Malsar,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
3.
Smt. Sumitra Daughter Of Late Bharmal, Wife Of Shri
Kuldeep, Resident Of Dhaka Mandi, Tehasil Buhana,
District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
Nahar Singh Son Of Late Kurdaram, Resident Of A- 103,
Basant Vihar, Jhunjhunu.
2.
Beerbal Son Of Late Kurda Ram, Resident Of A- 103,
Basant Vihar, Jhunjhunu And Village Malsar, Tehasil And
District Jhunjhunu.
3.
Dharmveer Son Of Late Bharmal, Resident Of Village
Malsar, Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. J.K. Moolchandani,
Adv. and Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Pyare Lal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
03/01/2022
1.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 31.8.2017 passed by learned trial court,
Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 47/2013 whereby objection with regard
to admissibility of the documents was rejected and the documents
were exhibited as evidences.
(2 of 9)
[CW-16500/2017]
2.
Before adverting to the issue, analysis of the case in brief
was considered necessary which is as under:
(i) That respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for declaration
and permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction against
the petitioners before the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu;
(ii) That when plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 commenced their
evidences, the petitioners herein raised an objection with respect
to two documents namely Anugya Patr dated 28.3.1985 issued by
Nagar Palika Mandal, Jhunjhunu and a writing in note book dated
6.10.1993 contending that these documents are not sufficiently
stamped and registered and as such are not admissible in
evidence and exhibits cannot be marked on these documents by
giving the stamp a colour of lease deed and partition deed.
(iii) That the learned trial court after hearing the parties, passed
the reasoned order dated 31.8.2017 holding that the document
issued by Nagar Palika Mandal is not a lease deed but a license
and the other document is a mere understanding between the
family and so are not required to be registered and stamped and
hence ordered the same to be marked as exhibits. Both the
documents dated 28.3.1995 and 6.10.1993 were marked as
exhibits for collateral purposes.
(iv) That in this background, aggrieved by the said order the
petitioners have filed the present writ petition whereby vide
interim order dated 24.10.2017, further proceedings before the
trial court were stayed and interim order passed on that date is
still continuing. The matter was listed before this Hon’ble Court
whereby with consent of both the respective advocates and in the
background of Apex Court judgment rendered in
Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. Vs.
(3 of 9)
[CW-16500/2017]
Central Bureau of Investigation; (2018) 16 SCC 299 (para
34), the matter was taken up for final disposal.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr.
Advocate submitted that the finding rendered by the trial court is
absolutely perverse, as per the provisions of Section 17 of the
Registration Act, and in the light of various judgments passed by
co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Apex Court reproduced
below:
(i) Baldev Acharya Vs. Shis Kumar Acharya, S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 5754/2019;
(ii) K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development
Consultant Ltd., reported in 2007-08 DNJ (SC) (Suppl.)
260;
(iii) M/s Dharmaratnakara Rai Vs. Bahadur Arcot
Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & other Charities &
ors. Vs. M/s Bhaskar Raju & Brothers & ors., (Civil
Appe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
