Uttarakhand High Court Smt. Rekha Devi vs Buniyad Husain And Another on 15 September, 2015 Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 UTTARAKHAND 48, (2015) 113 ALL LR 858, (2016) 2 CIVILCOURTC 88, (2016) 130 REVDEC 529 AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No.50 of 2015 Smt. Rekha Devi ... Revisionist vs. Buniyad Husain and another ... Respondents Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate present for the revisionist. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate present for the respondents. U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Present Civil Revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court / Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit No.33 of 2012, titled as Smt. Rekha Devi vs. Buniyad Husain. 2. The grounds taken up by the revisionist in the present civil revision are as follows: "(A) After considering the application and after hearing the arguments at length, learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1 and taken on record the documents, vide its order dated 01.05.2015. (B) While passing the impugned order, learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no.1 has not approached before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and concealed the material fact while placing on record the application for taken on record the documents because at the time of filing the written statement, an application is moved by the respondent no.1 by giving an explanation that why the written statement is being filed after expiry of prescribed period of time, wherein it has been stated that since the reply to the legal notice is made by Shri Nushrat Ali Ansari and the documents relating thereto are with the earlier counsel and some more documents are within the possession of S. K. Gupta and after perusal the same from the office of the Registrar, the said written statement is being filed on 19.12.2012, which fact, clearly shows that the documents were always in possession of the respondent no.1, however, the said fact has been 2 concealed by the respondent no.1 and cooked up a new story for taken on record the documents, therefore, the same are liable to be rejected and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. (C) While passing the impugned order learned court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no.1 has relied upon the agreement to sell, which is said to have been executed between the wife of the respondent no.1 and Smt. Jai Kaur on 26.05.2005, whereby it is alleged that Smt. Jai Kaur was the owner of the property in question and the said property have been agreed to purchase by the wife of the respondent no.1. However, instead of filing the original document, the respondent no.1 filed the photocopy of the agreement to sell dated 26.05.2005 and the same is neither properly stamped nor duly registered u/s 17 of Registration Act, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (D) While passing the impugned order, learned court has failed to appreciate the fact that it is well settled that the documents containing contract to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act shall be registered and if such document is not registered, then they shall not have effect for any purpose and the same is not liable to be taken into consideration and the plea taken by the respondent no.1 is liable to be rejected. (E) While passing the impugned order, learned court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the instruments which is not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence and the same is liable to be rejected. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act clearly provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence and further it also shut any secondary evidence of such instrument for allowing such evidence to be led in when the original admittedly chargeable the duty was not stamped would be tantamount no releva