- (1.) By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 7.4.2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City., Jaipur reviewed its own order dated 10.12.2007 and observed that the unregistered and insufficiently stamped document i.e. agreement to sell was not admissible in evidence.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in a suit for specific performance of contract one document i.e. agreement to sell was tendered in evidence on 17.8.2004 and was marked as Ex. I. The plaintiff was subjected to cross-examination and thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. During the evidence of defendant, one application came to be filed by the defendant that the document i.e. agreement to sell Ex.1, was insufficiently stamped and as such it was not admissible in evidence under the provisions of law. The learned trial Court reviewed its own order dated 10.12.2007 and held that the document which was insufficiently stamped, was not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 and contended that wherein an instrument had been admitted in evidence, such admission could not, except as provided in Section 71 of the Act be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding, on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. He cited one judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, 2007 AIR(SC) 637in support thereof.;