Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition filed under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India is directed against the order dt. 02.04.2013 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and permitting the respondents -plaintiffs to produce the agreement to sell on the record, and also against the order dt. 10.05.2013 passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the respondents -plaintiffs to pay the deficit stamp duty on the agreement to sell under Sec. 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the petitioner that the respondents -plaintiffs had not produced the original agreement to sell, for which the specific performance has been sought in the suit, alongwith the plaint and it was only when the petitioner -defendant filed the application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, respondents -plaintiffs had filed the said agreement. According to him, the alleged agreement produced by the respondents -plaintiffs was the forged one and the trial Court had committed error in permitting the said document to be produced on the record, and then sending it to the Collector, Stamp Duty, Ajmer, giving opportunity to the respondents -plaintiffs to pay the deficit stamp duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act. According to the learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma, since the respondents -plaintiffs had misused the process of law, the trial Court should not have exercised the discretion in their favour.
(2.) IN the instant case it appears that the respondent -plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement dt. 23.01.2001 allegedly executed by the petitioner -defendant. It further appears that the respondents had not produced the original agreement alongwith the plaint and, therefore, the petitioner had filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that without the production of original agreement the suit was not maintainable. It further appears that on such application having been made, the respondents -plaintiffs had sought to produce the original agreement on the ground that the original agreement was earlier produced by them alongwith the plaint and was taken back after the clerk of the Court compared it with the copy thereof and thereafter the copy was produced. Of course, no order -sheet in support of the said contention were produced. However since the issues have not been framed by the Court and since the evidence of the respondents -plaintiffs has also not started, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the respondents are permitted to produce the alleged original agreement. The petitioners would have ample opportunity to lead the evidence to challenge the said document. The alleged document being not sufficiently stamped, the trial Court has rightly sent it to the Collector Stamps for examination. The orders in question being discretionary in nature, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the same. As a result thereof the petition is dismissed.;