ABDUL RAHIM Vs. KHERUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge, No.3, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.246 of 2010.

(2.) THE respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant before the trial court seeking declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondents sought permission by filing an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC for taking certain documents like lease deed, compromise letter and power of attorney etc., on record which application was objected to by the present petitioner. The trial court vide the impugned order, permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to produce such documents, however, sent two documents namely the consent letter and the power of attorney to the Collector (Stamps), Ajmer, for determining the proper stamp duty to be paid by the respondents. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the petitioner and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it transpires that the trial court having found the two documents namely, the consent letter dated 15.12.2006 and the power of attorney dated 15.12.2006 sought to be produced by the respondents-plaintiffs, as unregistered under the Registration Act and not duly stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Duty Act, has sent both the documents to the Collector (Stamps) for determining the stamp duty, on such documents. The contention of learned counsel Mr. Mathur is that the documents which require registration could not have been held to be admissible in evidence even after the payment of stamp duty. The said contention cannot be accepted. It is true that section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998, instruments not duly stamped would not be admissible in evidence, however, on payment of proper stamp duty, such an document could be relied upon by the parties and could be made admissible in evidence. So far as the provisions contained in section 49 of the Registration Act is concerned, as per settled law position, all the documents which require registration but unregistered could be made admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. The beneficial reference to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Bonder Singh vs Nihal Singh, 2003 (4) SCC 161 may be made in this regard. It is needless to to say that even if such documents are made admissible in evidence and accordingly exhibited, it would not debar the petitioner-defendant from challenging the genuinity of such documents.