LAXMI NARAYAN Vs. RANVEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the order dtd. 21/3/2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rejected.

(2.) The facts of the present case in short are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sale with the respondent on 24/4/2014. Since, the respondent failed to honour his commitment as agreed on 24/4/2014, the petitioner preferred a suit for specific performance of the contract. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was preferred by the petitioner for taking on record the photocopy of the agreement to sale which was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 24/4/2014. This application for bringing on record photocopy of agreement to sale dtd. 24/4/2014 was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the original document was not properly stamped and, therefore, the photocopy of agreement to sale cannot be placed on record as secondary evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court committed an error while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 65 of the Act. He submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner squarely comes within the ambit of Clause (C) of Sec. 65 of Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, the learned trial court committed an error while rejecting the application on the ground that the original document was not properly stamped. He submits that even as per Sec. 49 of Indian Registration Act there is no requirement of the document to be registered as Sec. 49 carves out an exception of the document such as the document "Agreement to Sale" filed in the suit for specific performance. Learned counsel submits that even after taking on record the photocopy of the original agreement to sale dtd. 24/4/2014, the learned trial court is free to take the appropriate proceedings for sending the document for impounding, if the law permits. He submits that if this document is not brought on record, then the suit preferred by the petitioner itself will be redundant and the petitioner will be remediless. He, therefore, prays the writ petition may be allowed and order dtd. 21/3/2017 may be quashed and set aside and the learned trial court may be directed to take the photocopy of the agreement to sale dtd. 24/4/2014 on record.