1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4980/2009 LRs. of late Shri Gopal Singh Vs. Sawai Singh Date of Order :: 17th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Nitin Trivedi,for the petitioners .... Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the matter being at motion-admission stage, the application (IA No.10031/2009) is allowed; and the document filed with the application is taken on record as Annexure-7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard on admission. This petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the defendant in the money recovery suit (C.O. No. 54/2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner) seeking to challenge the order dated 19.11.2008 as passed by the learned Trial Court while dealing with their application moved under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). By the application aforesaid, the petitioners contended before the learned Trial Court that the disputed document dated 15.08.2002 as sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff-respondent was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and proper stamp duty; and that the document being bereft of nomenclature, neither there was any basis of the suit nor there was any cause of 2 action. The petitioners prayed that the document in question be returned to the plaintiff or in the alternative, the suit be dismissed. The learned Trial Court has, however, proceeded to construe the said document dated 15.08.2002 in the manner that it has been treated to be of two parts: one being that of receipt by the defendant Gopal Singh and another being that of a promissory note by the plaintiff Sawai Singh. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners, proceeded to observe that the plaintiff would be entitled to exhibit the said document in evidence after payment of stamp duty with penalty; but found no reason to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Though it has sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Trial Court has not properly construed the document in question and has erred in coming to the conclusion that the document was composed of two parts; and that the document cannot be taken as receipt and promissory note but this Court is clearly of opinion that such submissions do not make out a case of jurisdictional error leading to substantial failure of justice so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There appears no reason to entertain this writ petition. The petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni