1 37 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2734/2008 (Ramlal Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track)No.2 & Ors.) Date of Order :: 1st May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Usman Ghani, for the petitioner. .... Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order dated 11.03.2008, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error so as to consider interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The documents in question, as scribed in a 'Bahi' and as sought to be produced in evidence by the plaintiff in the present money recovery suit, were objected against by the defendant-petitioner before the learned Trial Court on the contention based on the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Swaroop: 1986 RLW 15 that they answer to the description of 'pronote' and being not sufficiently stamped, were not admissible in evidence. The objection was responded by the plaintiff with the submissions that the documents were not in the nature of any negotiable instrument and as per the larger bench decision of this Court in the case of Nanga Vs. Dhanna Lal : 1961 RLW 653, they were in the nature of 'agreement'. By its impugned order dated 11.03.2008 (Annex.3) the learned Trial Court has decided the question with the finding that the documents in question are agreements but has found them liable for stamp duty of Rs. 100/- each, and has, thus, directed depositing of the requisite stamp duty and so also Rs.1,000/- towards penalty for admitting the documents in evidence. 2 Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, this writ petition has been preferred by the defendant putting forward the contention that the documents in question answer to the description of 'bond' and being not properly stamped could not have been admitted in evidence. The contention sought to be canvassed in this writ petition that the documents in question could be construed as 'bond' was not even urged before the Trial Court; but it was suggested that the documents answer to the description of 'pronote'. The petitioner cannot be acceded liberty to take shifting stands regarding the nature of the documents and the petition is required to be rejected on this count only. Apart from the aforesaid, looking to the nature of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, admitting the documents in evidence upon payment of stamp duty and penalty treating them to be agreements can neither be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error nor leading to substantial failure of justice so as to call for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni