Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 671 (MP)

Fide Ali v. Zaffar Hussain

2020-06-05

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
ORDER : Vandana Kasrekar, J. 1. 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. 2. 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 unstamped 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. 3. 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 v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1489 ) : (2009 ATR SCW 979). 4. He relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matte of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1489 ) : (2009 ATR SCW 979). 4. 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 v. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1905 ) : (2003 ATR SCW 1383). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Thus, I found that the learned Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is called for. 8. 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. 9. 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.