MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. - (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 14th September, 2011 whereby the Additional District Judge (F.T) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur allowed the respondent-plaintiff to mark exhibit on agreement to sale.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that a suit for specific performance of contract came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 and 3, against the petitioner-defendant. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent intended to exhibit the document agreement to sale, but the petitioner-defendant opposed it and filed an application on 21st July, 2011 stating that the document agreement to sale is chargeable and it cannot be admitted in evidence, unless proper stamp duty is paid on it. The learned trial Court considered only the question of registration and ignoring the issue of stamp duty, arbitrarily allowed the application of plaintiffs-respondents and permitted them to exhibit the said document.
(3.) Albeit, the learned trial Court is found to have decided the application placing reliance upon the case of S.Kala Devi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram and Ors. reported in 2010(5) SCC, 401 but the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 is found to be totally sketchy, non-speaking, arbitrary and capricious. It appears that only the citation of the case has been quoted by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order, sans reading the judgment. Had the learned Presiding Officer read the whole judgment, he would have never passed such an illegal order. The Presiding Officer of the Court is of the rank of Additional District Judge, but his act seems to be unlike that of. The judgment is totally arbitrary, which deserves to be outrightly set aside.;