Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Singh & Anr vs . on 20 November, 2014
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
: ORDER :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1304/2012
Hari Singh & Anr.
Vs.
Himmat Singh & Anr.
Date of Order :: 20.11.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Salil Trivedi, for the petitioner/s.
Dr. R.S. Dev Rajpurohit, for the respondent/s.
----
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC has been rejected.
While deciding the application, the trial court came to the conclusion that the document sought to be produced was unregistered and unstamped. Further the delay was not properly explained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the application under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC, the Court cannot adjudicate on the admissibility of the document and the delay was properly explained and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
2
Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the order passed by the trial court.
I have considered the rival submissions.
From a perusal of the document which forms part of Annexure-3, it is apparent that the same is a purported sale deed and has been inscribed on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- and the consideration has been indicated at Rs. 6,001/-, the document being more than Rs. 100/-, is compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 / Section 17 of the Registration Act,1908 and is required to bear stamp duty as indicated in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('Stamp Act') (as was applicable on the date of execution of the document).
In view of the fact that the document is unregistered, the same is apparently inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
So far as reliance placed on 2010 DNJ (SC) 446 : S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors., by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said case involved a case whether the document was unregistered and in view of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the document cannot be said to be inadmissible 'for collateral purpose'. However, in the present case, the document is insufficiently stamped as well and in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the same is inadmissible.
Besides the above, the reason given out by the petitioner for non-production of the said document at the appropriate stage 3 i.e. alongwith the written statement, appears to be wholly baseless and it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in not accepting the said explanation.
In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
rm/30