BRAJA SUNDAR NANDA Vs. PRAVABATI KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the defendant no. 1 in C.S. No. 654 of 2011-I pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack against the order passed by the said court on 27.7.2012.

(2.) The opp. party no. 1 filed the aforementioned suit seeking a decree for specific performance of contract directing the defendants 1 to 7 to execute and register a sale deed in her favour in respect of the suit land described in Schedule-A, as delineated in the sketch map given in Schedule C, of the plaint, on receiving the balanceconsideration money of Rs.15.00 lakhs within a time to be fixed by the court, failing which for execution of the sale deed through court. On summons being served, the petitioner, who is defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement denying the entire allegations made in the plaint. The other defendants have also filed their respective written statement denying the plaint averments. After framing of issues, the suit being ready for hearing, the plaintiff opp. party no. 1 filed her evidence on affidavit. In course of her cross-examination, she produced the alleged plain paper agreement in evidence and sought to mark it as an exhibit. On objection being raised with regard to the authenticity of the said document, which was unstamped and unregistered, the said document has been marked as an exhibit with objection. The petitioner's contention that the said document could not have been marked as an exhibit was overruled by the impugned order.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that the learned trial court after hearing the parties appreciated that the document is compulsorily registerable. However, by the impugned order, it held that the plaintiff being a lady is entitled for exemption of court fee and hence, she can be directed to pay the stamp fee along with the registration fee, but at this juncture the plaintiff cannot be compelled to pay the stamp duty and registration fee along with the penalty which will definitely cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is quoted hereunder:-