Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 521 (MP)

Suman Rai v. Bhagwan Devi

2021-06-26

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER 1. The parties are at loggerheads on the question of legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 5.3.2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under section 35 of Indian Stamp Act has been rejected. 2. It is an admitted fact that earlier the time of examination of plaintiff’s witnesses before the Court below, a document was produced by the plaintiff projecting it to be an agreement to sale dated 14.10.2010. The said agreement was exhibited before the Court below in presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. Thereafter, on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 rule 3 CPC, the trial Court had passed an order dated 5.2.2016 and found that the said agreement to sell is not properly stamped. Thereafter, the order dated 5.2.2016 had been set aside by this Court vide order dated 31.8.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.1309/2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has erred in not holding that the agreement to sale being not properly stamped is not admissible in evidence, whereas earlier vide order dated 5.2.2016 the trial Court itself had found that the document is not properly stamped. It has also been submitted that the respondent No.1 had exhibited the document hand in glove with the respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for allowing the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. 6. It is true that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made on limited grounds. Interference can be made if order is passed without authority of law or it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. 7. The facts of the present case go to show that aforesaid agreement to sell dated 14.10.2010 had been exhibited in absence of the petitioner during recording of statement before Commissioner, who was appointed by the Court. As at the time of recording of evidence (examination-in-chief) the petitioner was not present and the document dated 14.10.2010 was insufficiently stamped, therefore, in my opinion, exhibiting of aforesaid document is not according to law. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances in totality, it is clear that the impugned order suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. As at the time of recording of evidence (examination-in-chief) the petitioner was not present and the document dated 14.10.2010 was insufficiently stamped, therefore, in my opinion, exhibiting of aforesaid document is not according to law. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances in totality, it is clear that the impugned order suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. Hence, I deem it proper to set aside the order impugned dated 5.3.2021 and remit the matter back before the trial Court with a direction to rehear the parties on the application of the petitioner under section 35 of Indian Stamp Act and decide it afresh considering first admissibility of the document dated 14.10.2010 and thereafter shall make endeavour to decide the civil suit on merits expeditiously. With the aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of.