SCA/5691/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5691 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= HUSENBHAI AAMADBHAI PARASARA & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus PATEL HASANALI ALIBHAI LEGAL HEIR AND L.R.OF DECEASED - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SANDEEP N BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MS BHARTI H RANA for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Sandeep Bhatt, learned advocate SCA/5691/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms.Bharti Rana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-original defendants have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed below Exh.36 in Civil Suit No.473 of 2003 dated 11.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Wankaner by which the learned trial court has dismissed the application Exh.36 and has passed an order to give exhibit number to the document Mark 38/1. 3. It appears from the application Exh.36 and the submissions that it was the contention on behalf of the petitioners-original defendants that the document Mark 38/1 was the lease agreement and therefore the same was required to be properly stamped and registered, and as it was on an insufficient stamp, the same was not required to be exhibited. It appears from the impugned order that the learned SCA/5691/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT trial court has come to the conclusion that the document Mark 38/1 is not the lease agreement but in the form of rent note which is not required to be stamped and registered and accordingly the learned trial court passed an order that the document Mark 38/1 be given the exhibit number. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners-original defendants have preferred the present Special Civil Application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The document Mark 38/1 which is ordered to be exhibited and given exhibit number is to be treated to have been tentative exhibited and the admissibility of the same is left open to be considered by the learned trial court at the time of trial and even the observations made by the learned trial court SCA/5691/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT while deciding the application Exh.36 is also to be considered tentative. (ii) All the questions with respect to the admissibility of the aforesaid document is kept open at the time of trial and at an appropriate stage the learned trial court to consider the same. 6. With these, present Special Civil Application is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when the suit is of the year 2003, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the same and decide and dispose of the same as early as possible. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/