SUGNA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant, challenging the order dt. 27.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura, District Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court has kept in abeyance the application of the petitioner raising objection against exhibiting the agreement to sell produced by the respondent No. 2 -plaintiff. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No. 2 has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dt. 22.02.2006 in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, the respondent -plaintiff has produced the said agreement along with his affidavit in the form of Examination -in -Chief, and the same was also exhibited. The petitioner -defendant therefore filed an application raising objection against exhibiting the said agreement in question. The trial Court vide the impugned order dt. 27.08.2012 kept the said application pending by observing that the said objection application shall be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shrey Gaharana, for the petitioner that this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9324/2012 filed by the respondent -plaintiff challenging the order dt. 17.04.2012 had kept the question of admissibility of the said agreement open, and observed that the same shall be decided by the trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial in accordance with law, and therefore the trial Court was required to decide the admissibility of the agreement before exhibiting the agreement in question. According to him, the said agreement having not been sufficiently stamped, the same could not be exhibited, being inadmissible under the Rajasthan Stamp Act.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court has committed an error in not deciding the application of the petitioner raising objection against exhibiting the agreement in question. It is needless to say that the admissibility of the agreement in question is required to be decided by the trial Court before exhibiting the same, and such objection application cannot be kept pending for being decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.