H“, . wk“ w . “W W $ingle Egmwa RE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W‘P.‘69),227 No. ém; /2009 / IONER / ' -. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, S/o. Shri Ram Bharose Gupta, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Jagdih ‘Kirana Stores, Main Road, Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant) RESPONDENT VERSUS ,y ’Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/o- Shri Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Main Road, Vishnu Nagar, Kududand, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) V (Piaintifff T PETITION UN/DER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. iI iI’m LI BEFO / PETIT WRI . MW?) 2W mm mzoog mm(m) mam mmm mmm mm wmn évs‘rrimm S.B. Hon’b!e Shri Justice N.K. Aqarwal 15. 07.2009 v c Shri Anup Majumdar, Ad ate for the petitioner, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Ad ooate for the respondent. (I With the consent of the es, the matter i5 heard finally at motion stage. The instant petition is drected against the order dated 07.02.2009 (Annexure P/1), p seed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur’ in civi suit No. 11A/06, whereby and whereunder the objection rais d by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 35 the Court Fees Act read with Section 17 of the Registration and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, has been dism d by the trial court, keeping the question to be decided at the tim of final hearing. ' The brief facts of the c se are that, the document i.e. ' Annexure P/4 was sought to be xhibited by the respondent in the evidence which was objected b the petitioner on the ground that the said document is not regi tered and also insufficient, and therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The trial court, without expressing any pinion regarding admissibility or non admissibility of the docume t, deferred its decision for at the time of final hearing. ma Mtg gm marina—mm 11/ 2002i —1 ,00,ooo. éLl p i t i e .~ cw?) (L4% ........ 3mm <q§i3m> a?w3r%i$§ wnw§w§m$ KmmRa%a$ m Emh¢qmm E&$m§I I%$%u&$$ Q Shri Majumdar submits that the order pa$sed by the trial court is without jurisdiction irasmuch as the admissibility or otherwise should have been decided by the trial court before exhibiting the said document in evidence. Per contra, Shri Agrawal bmits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as th question of admissibility of the Havmg heard the couns l appearing for the parties and havmg perused the record, l a of the opinion that the trial court i document Is still open which sh ll be decided by the trial court at the time of hearing the matter f ought to have decided the ad ssibility of the documents at the time of eVIdence itself before its exhibition and therefore the order passed by the trial court i set aSide and it directed that the trial court shall frst decide e question of admissibility, or otherWIse of the document and only thereafter proceed to record the eVidence in accordance With law the order dated O7 02 2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Second Additional District Judge Bilaspur is set aside No order asto costs i i i i l Petition is allowed an /’ dl‘ §K Sahu Ag‘t‘w‘” 1‘ J“dgg