IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.152 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2008. Sh.Rikhi Ram …..Petitioner -Versus- Prema Devi ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Rakesh Manta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan dated 3.5.2007 whereby he partly allowed the application of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to place on record a writing dated 23rd July, 1986 allegedly executed by the father of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and redemption of mortgage in respect of the suit land against the defendant. The plaintiff also challenged the correctness of various revenue entries. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts but it would be pertinent to mention that the defendant filed written statement and in the said written statement a specific plea was raised that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff i.e. Sh.Sant Ram had sold the suit land to the defendant and in this behalf Sh.Sant Ram executed writing dated 23rd July, 1986. The document was admittedly not filed with the written statement. No list of reliance was filed. When the plaintiff’s evidence was 2 being led an application was filed praying that the defendant may be permitted to place on record certified copies of Jamabandies for the years 1982-83, 1984-85, 1989-90, 1994-95 and 1999-2000 as well as the receipt dated 23.7.1986. The learned trial Court allowed the application in so far as it related to production of certified copies of the jamabandies but rejected the same as far as the writing dated 23.7.1986 was concerned. The main ground which weighed with the learned trial Court was that the document in question is a private document and not a public document. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that though reference to the document has been made in the written statement but no list of reliance was filed and since the document has been alleged to be a forged and vexatious document by the plaintiff there is no reason to admit the document in evidence. This order is under challenge. I have heard Sh.Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the defendant and Sh.Rakesh Manta, learned counsel for the plaintiff. The main objection of Sh.Manta is that even as per the averments of the defendant the said document creates right, title and interest in property and therefore requires registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and cannot be read and admitted in evidence in terms of Section 49 of the said Act. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I feel that the order of the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant for the first time had come up with the story of the execution of the said document. In the written statement itself reference to the document had been made. The plaintiff in replication had denied the execution thereof. The document, if it is genuine, would go to the root of the matter. At the stage of allowing the application for production of documents the Court is not expected to go into the question as to whether the documents are genuine or not. The document obviously has 3 to be proved in accordance with law. Mere production thereof will not mean that it is admitted in evidence. Whether the document is to be admitted in evidence or not, whether it can be read for collateral purpose or not, whether it can be raised as a defence by the defendant or not are questions to be decided by the trial court at the time when the document is being proved or at the time of final hearing but these questions cannot be decided at this stage. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the petition is allowed. The defendant is permitted to produce on record the document. Needless to say that the defendant shall have to prove the same in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall only admit the document in evidence if otherwise permissible under law. The petition is allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff before the trial Court on the next date . The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 3rd July, 2008. May 21, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge