H. ANANDA MURTHY Vs. SHREEKANTACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs Civil Revision Petition arising from a suit for ejectment. the suit was instituted for passing a decree of ejectment against the defendant to deliver possession of the plaint schedule premises. Suit is at the stage of trial. The defendant filed I.A.No.5 for recalling PW-2 for further cross-examination on the premise that there is need to produce an additional document to establish the defence. Application was rejected on the ground that the defendant had not stated in the written statement about the alleged mortgage. Assailing the said order a Civil Revision Petition was filed. In order to afford an opportunity to place all the material on record, the petition was allowed and the application was remanded for consideration afresh after the defendant produces the Mortgage Agreement to prove his case that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Trial Court was directed to consider both the applications i.e., application for production of the Mortgage Deed ' subject to admissibility of the same in evidence - and also I.A.No.5. I.A.No.6 was filed under Order 8, Rule 1A read with Sec. 151, Civil Procedure Code for according permission to produce the Mortgage Agreement. A common order allowing I.A. Nos.5 and 6 having been passed by the Trial Judge, this petition was filed to set aside the order to the extent of allowing of I.A.No.6.

(2.) Sri K.P. Asokumar, learned advocate vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge has lost sight of the fact that an unregistered Mortgage Deed, that was sought to be produced, is compulsorily registerable under Sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act and as such, is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the question of paying duty and penalty did not arise at all as the payment of duty and penalty would not cure the non-registration of the Deed. He submitted that while allowing I.A.No.6, the observation made in the order passed earlier i.e., in the revision petition filed assailing the order passed on I.A.No.5 has not been kept in view. He contended that the question of payment of duty and penalty would arise in respect of document which is compulsorily registerable and not properly stamped. He submitted that the Trial Judge has committed grave error in not considering the tenable objections filed to I.A.No.6 and there being miscarriage of justice, there is a need for interference.

(3.) Sri. R. B. Sadasivappa, learned advocate on the other hand submitted that the Revision Petition filed as against the order passed on I.A.No.5 having been allowed and the respondent given an opportunity to place all the materials available with him before the Trial Court, which was directed to consider the same, after the Mortgage Agreement dated 25-10-2005 is produced, Trial Judge is justified in allowing I.A.No.6. He made submissions in support of the order passed on I.A.No.6 and sought dismissal of this petition.