1 SS/1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2713/2008. Ramrichhpal Nuwal Vs. Govind Prasad & Anr. Date of Order :: 25th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Samdariya – Caveator. ..... BY THE COURT: The matter has been placed for consideration on board with permission. Learned counsel Mr. K.C. Samdariya puts in appearance for the contesting respondent in caveat. Learned counsel for the parties have made final submissions and at request, the matter is disposed of at this stage itself. By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner facing a suit for redemption of mortgage seeks to question a part of the order dated 17.04.2008 (Annex.6) as passed by the learned Trial Court upholding the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff in relation to admissibility of a document allegedly bearing the date of 31.03.1992 and marked exhibit in the defendant's affidavit (Annexed with this petition as Annexure-5). The learned Trial Court has referred to the 2 stand of the parties and the contents of the document in question and has held that the document compulsorily required registration and stamp duty paid thereupon was deficit and hence, the same was not admissible in evidence. After examining the document in question, upon this Court expressing prima facie doubts about the propositions as stated by the learned Trial court, learned counsel Mr. Samdariya, in the first place attempted to justify the order as passed by the learned Trial Court but then, in all fairness, submitted that if at all at this stage the document in question is permitted to be exhibited in evidence, the objections of the plaintiff regarding its admissibility and so also about its nature and probative value may be kept open to be decided at the final argument stage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the pleadings of the parties and their respective stand, as noticed in detail in the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2493/2008 arising out of the same suit, the proposition as stated on behalf of the plaintiff seems appropriate and proper; and deserves to be accepted. Therefore, without expression of final opinion in the matter, it appears appropriate to modify the part of order dated 17.04.2008 (Annex.6) whereby the document in 3 question (Annex.5) has been held inadmissible in evidence; and the said document may be permitted to be exhibited in evidence keeping all the objections of the plaintiff in that relation open to be decided at the final argument stage. It goes without saying that for the document being permitted to be exhibited in evidence per the force of this order, it would not otherwise cause prejudice to the stand of the plaintiff-respondent; and equally, all the submissions sought to be made by the defendant-petitioner in relation to the document in question shall also remain open. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; and the impugned order dated 17.04.2008 (Annex.6) stands modified accordingly. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. Mohan/