Fide Ali S/o Hakimuddinji Bohra vs Zaffar Hussain S/o Mohammad Hussain

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27/08/2019 passed by II

Additional Civil Judge of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch by which the learned Court below has granted permission to mark the document as exhibit

by respondent/plaintiff.

The respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs.31,00,000/- advanced under sale agreement for the suit property. The

petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement thereby refuting the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of suit. It is alleged that at the time

of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Section 17 of the Registration Act for restraining the

respondent/plaintiff to exhibit the sale agreement being un-stamped and un-registered. Respondent/plaintiff did not file any written objection but orally

opposed the application of the petitioner/defendant. The learned trial Court vide order impugned i.e. on the same date of filing of the said application, in

a most superficial manner has come to hold that the said agreement seems to have been produced only for the collateral purposes and therefore, the

registration of the same is not required and dismissed the application without adverting itself on the question of insufficiency of stamp duty to be paid

on said agreement. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner. He submits that

objections raised by the petitioner/defendant were not only with respect to the non-registration of the sale agreement but also with respect to the

insufficiency of the stamps but the learned trial Court without even carefully going through the said objections have dismissed the application in a most

superficial manner. He argued that document sought to be marked as an exhibit could not have been marked as an exhibit even for a collateral

purpose. He relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matte of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) (II) SCC

532.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the trial Court and submits that no error has been committed by

the Court below in passing the impugned order. He further submits that un-stamped and un-registered document can be looked into for the collateral

purpose. For the preposition, he relied on Bondar Singh and others vs. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.31,10,000/-, which has been admitted to have paid to the

petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement denying all the plaint allegations. At the time of recording of evidence,

the petitioner/defendant had filed an application under Section 17 of the Registration Act raising objections that the agreement in question is not

admissible in evidence, as neither duly stamped nor registered. Court below vide order dated 27/08/2020 has rejected the said application. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.31,10,000/-, although the suit is not for specific performance of

contract or declaration of title, therefore, the same agreement could be seen/considered in the evidence for collateral purpose. In Bondar Singh's case

(Supra) it has been held that the un-stamped and un-registered sale-deed can at least be looked into for the collateral purpose. In the present case also

in the said agreement no title is conferred as it was for recovery of money and therefore, although it is un-stamped and un-registered agreement, but it

can be looked into for collateral purpose.

The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case, as the facts of that case are different from

the present case.

Thus, I found that the learned Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, present petition sans merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.