FIDE ALI Vs. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27/08/2019 passed by II Additional Civil Judge of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch by which the learned Court below has granted permission to mark the document as exhibit by respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs.31,00,000/- advanced under sale agreement for the suit property. The petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement thereby refuting the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of suit. It is alleged that at the time of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Section 17 of the Registration Act for restraining the respondent/plaintiff to exhibit the sale agreement being un-stamped and un-registered. Respondent/plaintiff did not file any written objection but orally opposed the application of the petitioner/defendant. The learned trial Court vide order impugned i.e. on the same date of filing of the said application, in a most superficial manner has come to hold that the said agreement seems to have been produced only for the collateral purposes and therefore, the registration of the same is not required and dismissed the application without adverting itself on the question of insufficiency of stamp duty to be paid on said agreement. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner. He submits that objections raised by the petitioner/defendant were not only with respect to the non- registration of the sale agreement but also with respect to the insufficiency of the stamps but the learned trial Court without even carefully going through the said objections have dismissed the application in a most superficial manner. He argued that document sought to be marked as an exhibit could not have been marked as an exhibit even for a collateral purpose. He relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matte of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) (II) SCC 532.