NAVEEN GARG Vs. CHINTAMAN
LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-306
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: JABALPUR)
Decided on January 19,2018

Naveen Garg Appellant
VERSUS
CHINTAMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dt.03.03.2017 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class 2 Gwalior, who vide impugned order has directed for confiscation of document and payment of the deficit stamp duty.
(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that this decision on subsequent application as contained in Annexure P/7 could not have been entertained by the trial court, inasmuch as the defendant had raised objection when plaintiff sought to exhibit document dt.01.09.2014 on 21.10.2016 and such objection was decided by the court, therefore, such order deciding the objection against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff could have been challenged before the superior court but by virtue of filing an application as contained in Annexure P/7, the order which has already been taken in regard to admissibility of document has been reviewed. He has drawn attention of this court to the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 so also the judgment of this court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sundrani and another Vs. Jagdish Prakash Angal and others as reported in 2017 (1) MPJR 37, wherein the court has held that if a document is already marked as an exhibit by the trial court during the course of examination-in-chief of the plaintiff in the absence of any objection thereto, in the light of provisions under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, admissibility of the document can not be questioned at a later stage in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Javer Chand Vs. Pukhraj Surana as reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rattan (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Bajrang Lal and others as reported in 1978 AIR (SC) 1393, such document had not precluded the defendant from raising an objection and the trial court was obliged to decide such objection. He has placed reliance on para 6 of the judgment in which the facts were that a document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection was raised by the defendant that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and for want of registration. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was obligatory upon the trial judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and decide the objection in accordance with law. In the case of Ram Rattan (supra), the fact was that a trial judge had not decided the objection and had postponed the decision and to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence had decided to mark the document in evidence subject to objection. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that without deciding the objection, the tendency to mark document is fatal and under such circumstances, such marking of the document was held to be inadmissible. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act would come into play only when such admission was not called in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.