Keshav Kumar Trivedi, J.:— Heard on the question of admission.
2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10/8/2011, by which the petitioner-defendant was not allowed to exhibit the document which he got impounded after obtaining the order from the Court.
3. It is contended that an objection was raised by the respondent-plaintiff with respect to the admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped document of agreement between the parties, which objection was considered by the trial Court and by order dated 22/1/2010 it was held that the agreement dated 1/7/2006 was not admissible in evidence. However, since the petitioner-defendant was very much interested in getting that document exhibited only because he too has filed a counter claim against respondent-plaintiff before the trial Court, he moved an application under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act before the trial Court seeking leave of the Court to pay the penalty and get the document impounded. Such an application was allowed and the petitioner has deposited the amount of penalty. At the time of cross-examination of the witnesses when such a document was sought to be produced, objection was raised by the respondent-plaintiff and the Court has held by the impugned order that since the order earlier passed by the trial Court on an application made by the respondent-plaintiff was never called in question anywhere, the petitioner was not entitled to get the said document exhibited. In view of this, the order was passed restraining the petitioner to exhibit the said document. Hence, this writ petition is required to be filed. In abundant caution the petitioner has also filed Writ Petition No. 16883/2011 calling in question the order dated 22/1/2010.
4. This Court had noted down on 22/5/2014 that in Writ Petition No. 16883/2011 further proceedings of the suit were stayed, the respondent was served and was being represented by a counsel. While issuing notice of this writ petition, it was directed that copy of the writ petition be delivered to learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the connected writ petition and the writ petition was directed to be heard along with connected writ petition.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has served a copy of the writ petition on learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but though both the matters are listed today the respondent is not being represented by any counsel despite service.
6. On over all consideration of the fact as has come on record, it is clear that while passing the order the trial Court has simply sustained the objection raised by the respondent-plaintiff with respect to the admissibility of the insufficiently stamped document. That objection had come to an end the moment application made by the petitioner-defendant for impounding of the document under Section 35 of the Stamp Act was allowed by the trial Court. The said objection had rendered ineffective immediately on deposit of the stamp duty and the penalty amount by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the trial Court on his application. Therefore, the petitioner was not to be restrained to exhibit the document of agreement by the trial Court. Such an order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10/8/2011 passed by the trial Court refusing the petitioner to exhibit his document of agreement dated 1/7/2006 is hereby set aside. The petitioner would be allowed to exhibit the said document.
8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of finally.
Comments