KANTI Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 30th July, 2011, whereby the learned Additional civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kota dismissed the application of the defendants-petitioners dated 14th October, 2010, wherein he had implored the Court to delete the exhibits 3 and 13 marked on two documents.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent Abdul Majid against the defendant-petitioner Kanti and others. During the evidence of the plaintiff, many documents were filed and out of these documents, Exs. 3 and 13 were the agreement to sale, which were not duly registered under the provisions of Registration Act. Since the documents were not registered, hence they could not be admitted to evidence under the provisions of law. Learned trial court allowed the plaintiff to mark the exhibits on these two documents and despite there being a clear provision and having drawn the attention of the court, the learned trial court dismissed his application dated 14th October, 2010. The impugned order is bad in law, hence the same deserve to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that if the documents are not tendered in the suit for specific performance of contract, then the proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act does not hold good and the document is required to be registered under section 17 of Registration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 AIR(SC) 1489. Judgment of this Court in the case of Parmanand Setia v. Somlal & others, 2003 1 DNJ 107; and Jagdish Prasad v. Hanuman Das & Others,2008 3 DNJ1245.