BADAN SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 12th February, 2009, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed on 25th August, 2008.

(2.) The brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the plaintiff filed an affidavit and he himself exhibited the document, a reference whereof is found to have been made in the affidavit itself. One document, agreement to sell was exhibited by the plaintiff himself as Exhibit-1 and the same was shown to have been exhibited in the affidavit of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant filed an application on 25th August. 2008 imploring that the exhibit, marked by the plaintiff himself, should he deleted, as the document was insufficiently stamped.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the learned Trial Court dismissed the application merely on the ground that since the document had already been exhibited as Exhibit-1, the exhibit already marked could not be deleted. Learned Counsel further contended that if the document was insufficiently stamped, the same was not admissible in evidence and it could not be exhibited. The objection in this regard could be raised by the adversary even at the later stage. He has cited the judgment of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 SC 1158 and Shyamal Kumar Roya v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, 2007 (1) ELC (SC) Civil 283 = AIR 2007 SC 637. in support thereof. Learned Counsel further contended that since the document was exhibited in his absence and, when the occasion arose, he raised an objection but the same was dismissed without assigning any lawful reason. Thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.