- (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 3rd of November 2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court').
(2.) THE apposite facts, for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent-defendant before the learned trial Court, inter-alia, on the ground that the respondent agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and in terms of the agreement the entire consideration amount was paid by the petitioner and accepting the same a receipt was executed by the respondent. The petitioner has also averred in the plaint that the respondent has also executed a Will in his favour for the said property. The suit was contested by the respondent and written statement was submitted on his behalf. In the written statement, the respondent has denied all the averments contained in the plaint. Acknowledging the acceptance of the amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, the respondent has stated with clarity and precision in the written statement that the said amount was paid by the petitioner to the respondent for his future maintenance and not in the form of consideration of the disputed property. Adverting to the alleged Will, the respondent has repudiated the claim of the petitioner by alleging that the Will has already been cancelled.
(3.) AFTER submission of the written statement on behalf of the respondent, an application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 17 of the Registration Act was preferred before the learned trial Court raising serious objections about the authenticity and admissibility of the receipt allegedly signed by him. The respondent has raised objection in the application that the alleged receipt is per-se transaction of sale of the immovable property and looking to the recitals contained in the document, it is inadmissible in evidence. Categorizing the document as improperly stamped and unregistered, the respondent has prayed that the petitioner-plaintiff may not be allowed to mark exhibit on the same. As regards the Will, the respondent has objected to its admissibility on the ground that it is a testamentary instrument and the executant of the same is alive, therefore, it is of no significance whatsoever.;