SATYA BHAMA Vs. KAJOD MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.5/2011, whereby the trial court has tentatively marked the documents as Ex.1A1/1 produced by the respondents-defendants during the cross examination of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned counsel Shri Bansal for the petitioners/plaintiffs has submitted that during the cross examination of the petitioner Satyabhama, one document namely copy of an agreement to sell dated 18.9.1993 was sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and the said document though was insufficiently stamped, the trial court marked the said document as Ex. 1A1/1, while upholding the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, the trial court should not have even tentatively marked the said document which was insufficiently stamped, as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v/s State of Gujarat and Anr (2001) 3 SCC 1.