Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition is directed against the order dt. 12.10.2012 & allied order 23.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, the trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 177/2009 titled as Ratan Kumari vs. Bhagwan Sahai & Ors., whereby the objections raised by the plaintiff -petitioner regarding admissibility of release dt. 15.10.2007 has been disallowed and the application filed by the plaintiff -petitioner seeking deletion of exhibits marked on certain documents has been rejected. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner -Ratan Kumari is the plaintiff in the suit titled as Ratan Kumari vs. Bhagwan Sahai & Ors., bearing Suit No. 177/2009 pending in the trial Court. The Suit, as prayed, is principally for partition of a property namely; Plot No. E -25, Gokhle Marg, C -Scheme, Jaipur. The suit was originally filed impleading Bhagwan Sahai, the brother of plaintiff -petitioner; Naveen Kumar, son of plaintiff -petitioner's deceased sister Kanchan Kumari and Smt. Mohan Kanwar, mother of the plaintiff -petitioner. The plaintiff -petitioner claimed herself to be entitled to the extent of ¼th share in the above property and accordingly sought division of property by metes and bounds in the suit along with other ancillary relief.
(2.) DURING the course of the suit, a document termed as Release deed dt. 15.10.2007 came to be executed and registered allegedly by Smt. Mohan Kanwar in favour of her son Bhagwan Sahai. The plaintiff -petitioner alleging that the same was executed fraudulently and against the mandatory provisions of law, sought quashing of the registration of such Release deed by filing a separate writ petition namely; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10543/2008 which is also being disposed of simultaneously by a separate order. But in the partition suit, the plaintiff -petitioner questioned the admissibility of the deed in evidence, mainly for want of proper stamp duty. The trial Court was not impressed by the contentions raised by the plaintiff -petitioner and held that as the Release deed was a registered document and the plaintiff -petitioner failed to raise any objection in this regard on an earlier occasion, upon the certified copy of the deed hence, the release deed was admissible in evidence. The plaintiff -petitioner also raised objection with regard to the methodology that was adopted for marking exhibits on the documents relied upon by the defendant -respondent -Bhagwan Sahai. It was also contented on behalf of the plaintiff -petitioner that the exhibits were not marked in the affidavit of the defendant -respondent -Bhagwan Sahai presented under Order 18 C.P.C. and were marked later on in the oral testimony when Bhagwan Sahai entered into the witness box to verify the contents of his affidavit and such procedure adopted was illegal. The trial Court was also not impressed by this contention raised by the plaintiff -petitioner and rejected the application moved in this behalf vide order dt. 23.07.2012. The plaintiff -petitioner moved a review application seeking review of this order and also moved another application raising objection about the admissibility of the Release deed for want of proper stamp duty. The trial Court vide its order dt. 12.10.2012 rejected both the applications of the plaintiff -petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dt. 12.10.2012 and 23.07.2012 the plaintiff -petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner contented that the orders of the Court below suffered from serious legal infirmity and has inflicted grave injustice upon the plaintiff -petitioners. He contented that the Release deed was prima facie not properly stamped and hence was inadmissible in evidence according to Section 39 of the Stamps Act. He contended that the property covered under the release deed was not "ancestral" and hence the stamp duty of Rs. 100 was insufficient. He also contented that the deed was got executed fraudulently and its registration was already under challenge in another writ petition, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10543/2008 pending before this Court and hence the trial Court committed a manifest error in holding that the Release deed was admissible in evidence.;