DINESH KUMAR PRAJAPAT Vs. VINOD PANKAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although, the matter comes up on an application no.1/2021 filed by the respondents seeing vacation of ex parte interim order; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 25/3/2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Keshorai Pattan, District Bundi whereby, an application filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 for not taking the subject document in evidence, has been allowed.

(3.) The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the respondents/defendants. During the course of trial, the plaintiff wanted to exhibit an agreement to sell which was objected by the respondent no.1. Sustaining the objection, the learned trial Court has observed that insufficiently stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unstamped/insufficiently stamped document as also unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose and since, he wanted to exhibit the subject sale agreement to demonstrate demarcation of the subject property, it was admissible in evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dtd. 25/3/2019 be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to permit him to exhibit the subject document. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court of India:- (I) S. Kaladevi Vs. R. Somasundaram & Ors.: AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654 & (II) Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors.: AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905.