IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 54 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.5.2008 Saroj Kumari ..Petitioner. Versus. Gian Chand ..Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.( Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Jawali, dated 14.12.2007 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff whereby she had prayed that the respondent should be restrained from summoning inadmissible evidence in the nature of an affidavit dated 24.3.1999 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that previously also an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the defendant to requisition the record from the Executive Magistrate, Fatehgarh pertaining to attestation of affidavit - 2 - No.492/99 on 24.3.1999 which was allegedly executed by plaintiff Saroj Kumari. This application though filed under Section 151 CPC was treated as an application under Order 13 rule 10 CPC. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 27.8.2005 came to the conclusion that the Court had no power under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC to use in evidence a document which under the Law of Evidence would be inadmissible in the courts. Further , the Court came to the conclusion that as per the allegations of the defendant, by the said affidavit, the plaintiff had relinquished her right in immovable property and therefore it requires registration and hence is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, need not be requisitioned. This order was not challenged and attained finality. Thereafter when the case was listed for defendant’s evidence, he filed a list of witnesses to be summoned. The defendant also summoned the record regarding the affidavit. The plaintiff in the meantime filed an application praying that the defendant be restrained from summoning inadmissible evidence. I am of the considered opinion that no order could be passed restraining the defendant from summoning the record. The record which is sought to be summoned can be summoned. However, whether the affidavit is admissible or - 3 - not is a matter to be decided by the trial Judge in light of the order passed by his predecessor on 27.8.2005 and keeping in view the provisions of law. Despite the bar of Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document can still be read for collateral purposes. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10th June, 2008. The records of the courts below be returned so as to reach there well before the date fixed. May 14, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s. - 4 -