MATHURAM Vs. ALAGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.03.1998 made in I.A.No.141 of 1998 in O.S.No.319 of 1991 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivaganga.

(2.) Today, when the above civil revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was alone present and neither the respondent, nor his counsel appeared before this Court, in spite of his name having been brought in the list as a result of which, this Court is left with no option but to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and pass orders, based on the materials made available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The short point that falls for consideration and decision in the above civil revision petition is that the lower court has passed an order in I.A.No.141 of 1998, as per its order dated 19.03.1998, thereby permitting the respondent/defendant to pay the registration charges on an unregistered instrument, which is in the nature of a sale deed, thus making it known that in the event of complying with the said condition of payment of duty, the said instrument would be allowed to be marked as a document in evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff has come forward to file the above revision seeking to set aide the order passed by the trial court, the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivaganga, on certain grounds that by virtue of the order passed by the lower court, an unenforceable instrument, when the stamp duty, etc. is paid, becomes liable to be marked, whereas, in law, particularly as per the Registration Act, the document in question cannot be registered beyond 120 days from the alleged date of execution and hence the order of the lower court is against the very provisions of the Registration Act; that having found that the document in question is an unregistered instrument, the court below has erred in allowing the said interlocutory application, which it should have rightly rejected.