- (1.) THE petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.5/2011, whereby the trial court has tentatively marked the documents as Ex.1A1/1 produced by the respondents-defendants during the cross examination of the plaintiff.
(2.) THE learned counsel Shri Bansal for the petitioners/plaintiffs has submitted that during the cross examination of the petitioner Satyabhama, one document namely copy of an agreement to sell dated 18.9.1993 was sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and the said document though was insufficiently stamped, the trial court marked the said document as Ex. 1A1/1, while upholding the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, the trial court should not have even tentatively marked the said document which was insufficiently stamped, as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v/s State of Gujarat and Anr (2001) 3 SCC 1. .In the instant case, it appears that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondents No. 1 and 2 � defendants. During the course of examination of the petitioner Satyabhama, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants relied upon one document namely the certified copy of the agreement to sell dated 18.9.1993, which was initially marked as Ex. 1A1 on which the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs raised objection and therefore, the trial court upholding the said objection tentatively marked the said document as Ex. 1A1/1 by further observing that whether the said document could be made admissible in evidence or not shall be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. There appears to be some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), when the objection with regard to the deficiency of stamp duty on the document is raised, the court has to decide the said objection before proceedings further and such document could not be tentatively marked as exhibit, however in the instant case, since the document is sought to be relied upon during the cross examination of the plaintiff and since the objection raised against the admissibility of the said document in evidence has been reserved by the trial court, the said document would not be read in evidence, though the tentatively marked. Under these circumstances, as such no prejudice is caused to the petitioners-plaintiffs by the impugned order passed by the trial court, which would require interference of this court. Since the document in question has been tentatively marked by the trial court, it will be open for the petitioners-plaintiffs to raise the objection with regard to the admissibility of the said document in future, if the said document is sought to be relied upon and proved by the respondents-defendants for being finally exhibited and read in evidence. With these observations, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;