1 WP-6497-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6497 OF 2011 Sunny Thomas Verghese ..Petitioner Vs Dipen Bhagwandas Panchal and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Sandesh D. Patil, for petitioner. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 13 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. The original defendant has filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane below exhibit 57 in Special Civil Suit No.164 of 2003. By that order, the learned trial Judge overruled the objections raised by the petitioner for marking and exhibiting the agreement of sale dated 29 th March, 2000. 2] Heard Mr.Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition. He submitted that the respondent – original plaintiff had unconditionally withdrawn the said document. At that 2 WP-6497-11.odt time, the respondent - plaintiff did not seek liberty to tender that document. He further submitted that even cross-examination of the plaintiff was over and the original agreement was neither exhibited nor read in evidence. It is in these circumstances, the respondent- plaintiff had no right to produce agreement of sale which was not produced previously. He further submitted that the plaintiff did not follow proper procedure for registration of declarations. 3] I have considered the submissions of Mr.Patil. The learned trial Judge, while rejecting the application, has recorded in paragraph 4 that the respondent herein - plaintiff initially sought to prove the said agreement of sale in evidence and as the said agreement did not bear the adequate stamp, in order to remove this flaw, the respondent plaintiff withdrew that document for paying proper stamp duty and registration thereof. In so far as the withdrawal of the document without obtaining permission for filing said document again is concerned, the learned trial Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. Dilip Construction Company, AIR 1969 SCC 1238 and came to the conclusion that if the plaintiff pays adequate stamp duty later, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant in defending the suit. He further relied upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and overruled the objections raised by the defendant. 3 WP-6497-11.odt 4] I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error while overruling the objections raised by the petitioner- defendant. No interference is called for in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is rejected. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]