1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3632/2007 {Govind Singh @ Nahnu Versus Baiz Nath & Others} Date of Order :: 5th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dileep Sinsinwar for the petitioner Mr. Shailendra Khandewal) for the respondents with ) Mr. Satish Khandelwal ) Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal ) BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Khandelwal appears for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement and during the pendency of that suit, he moved an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to allow him to file secondary evidence in respect of agreement dated 11th February, 2002 on the ground that the said agreement was given to one Hazari Lal Goyal vide receipt dated 13th February, 2002, Annexure-5 (B), and the same has been torned. He also placed on record some pieces of agreement in torned condition and prayed that a 2 photostat copy of the agreement which was given to him earlier may be allowed to be placed on record as secondary evidence. The trial court rejected the application vide impugned order dated 9th February, 2007 observing that the original agreement itself was not admissible in evidence as it was unstamped and unregistered, therefore, his secondary evidence in respect of this document cannot be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original agreement was torned which is clear from its pieces placed on record as Annexure-5 C and contended that the agreement was in existence and so far as admissibility of the document which is unregistered and unstamped is concerned, the same can be taken on record at least for collateral purpose, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court in the light of submissions advanced on behalf of 3 both the parties. A photostat copy of some pieces of the torn agreement has been placed on record as Annexure-5 C, a copy of the receipt showing delivery of the agreement has been placed on record as Annexure-5 B. The trial court rejected the application mainly by observing that there is a reference of handing over possession in the agreement, therefore, its registration was compulsory and this document being unstamped and unregistered could not have been allowed even if original would have been produced, therefore, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be allowed. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bonder Singh Versus Nihal Singh (2003) 4 SCC 161 held that the document which is unstamped and unregistered, even if not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose. The same view was taken by this Court in Roshan Bai Versus Madan Lal 2007 (1) ILR 379. 8. In view of above referred judgments, it is clear that even if the said document is not admissible in evidence, then it can be looked into for collateral purpose and for the said reason, the petitioner should be allowed 4 to place the photostat copy of the said agreement on record as secondary evidence as original has been torned. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner and order passed by the court below is liable to be set-aside. 10. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th February, 2007 passed by the Court below is set-aside. The application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is allowed. The plaintiff may be allowed to file secondary evidence of the agreement as prayed in the application. 11. No order as to costs. 12. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application filed by the petitioner dated 29th August, 2008 and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK