SAMRATHMAL Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff the petitioner before this Court, who has felt aggrieved against an order dated August 1,2008, passed by the trial Judge, whereby an entry in the Bahi of the plaintiff-petitioner, on the basis of which the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery against the defendant, has been treated to be a bond and as such, the plaintiff has been directed to pay stamp charges, etc., accordingly.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the document in question, but without commenting anything on the authenticity thereof, I feel that the trial Court has erroneously held the document in question to a bond. As a matter of fact, the suit in question is primarily filed by the plaintiff merely on the basis of Bahi entry, which is alleged to be counter signed by the defendant also. In my considered view, the said document, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be treated to be a bond, in any manner and as such, the trial Court could not have directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty, etc.

(3.) HOWEVER , the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law and decide the suit expeditiously. During the course of arguments before the trial Court, it would be open to the parties to raise all legal objections, which are available to them, in accordance with law.