JAI NARAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for recovery, at the time of evidence the plaintiff wanted to exhibit a document alleged to be a bond entered into between the parties at the time of taking loan. The execution of the document has not been disputed so far. However, the only objection as taken on behalf of the defendant-respondents has been that the document is not duly stamped nor rejected. The trial Court while considering the objection raised on behalf of the defendant-respondents directed the plaintiff to deposit the requisite stamps fee with penalty in accordance with law within one month and only thereafter, the said document could be executed (Sic exhibited). A revision petition against the order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the trial Court was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 15.9.2001. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the issue can be decided only at the time of final arguments, whether the document exhibited is so admissible under the law or not. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Case of Smt. Ratan Sharma v. The New India Insurance, 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 343. This Court while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna Nayar and Ors. v. Harshvardhan Singh, has observed that the question of admissibility of a document would have to be determined at the conclusion of the trial only. All other defence to the admissibility of the document are always open till determined by the trial Court.

(3.) In the present case, the trial Court may also take the document on record and allow the plaintiff-petitioner to exhibit the same. The defendant-respondents shall be at liberty to rebut the document and take all objections available to them in accordance with law in regard to admissibility of the document and the same shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit.