1 Girdhari Lal Vs. Ratan Lal Kabra (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11335/09) Dated : 18.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 12.10.09 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar in Civil Suit No.11/08, whereby issue no.4 framed regarding admissibility in evidence of sale deed dated 29.4.04, has been decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the petitioner/defendant. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the petitioner. It is stated in the plaint that the petitioner sold his share in the disputed property by way of an agreement to sell dated 29.4.04 for consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the respondent. However, the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed and get it registered, therefore, the respondent filed the suit as aforesaid. 3. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. An objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the admissibility in evidence of the document i.e. agreement to sell dated 29.4.04, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issues, which includes issue no.4 2 framed in terms that “whether so called agreement dated 29.4.04 is not admissible in evidence being not registered”. 4. On the prayer being made on behalf of the petitioner, the aforesaid issue has been decided by the learned trial court as preliminary issue by the order impugned. The learned trial court after due consideration arrived at the conclusion that in the suit for specific performance of the contract, the agreement to sell is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes even without registration in view of provisions of Section 49A of the Indian Registration Act. Accordingly, the issue has been decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Hence, this petition. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the document regarding any transaction of immovable property is not admissible in evidence, if the same is not duly registered. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel that while deciding the question as to the admissibility of the document for want of registration, travelling beyond the scope of the issue framed, the learned trial court has further observed that the document stands duly stamped and, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while deciding the issue framed as aforesaid, the court was not justified in recording the finding on sufficiency of the stamp. 6. In considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the learned trial court relying upon various decision of this Court that the document 3 in question is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes cannot be faulted with. It is to be noticed that no specific issue has been framed regarding insufficiency of the stamp duty, however, the court has made observation in view of the fact that the respondent has paid the deficit stamp, therefore, the document cannot be held to be inadmissible in evidence even on this count. A document insufficiently stamped cannot be rejected as inadmissible in evidence, if the deficit stamp duty is paid by the party concerned. 7. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (SANGEET LODHA),J. vij