GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 16. 2. 2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 14. 5. 2003 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bhilwara (respondent No. 1) by which he observed that during the course of proceedings when the statement of PW 1 Bherudas was going to be produced before PW 1 Bherudas, the defendants- petitioners raised an objection that since the document Annex. 2 is a mortgage deed and it was not properly stamped and registered, therefore, it could not be got exhibited and further, it was not admissible in evidence, but he instead of first deciding that objection of the defendants-petitioners; permitted to exhibit the document Annex. 2, subject to the final decision on that objection, which would be taken later on, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) IN this petition, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that a bare reading of the document Annex. 2 reveals that it was a mortgage deed and it was compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and neither it was properly stamped nor registered and therefore, it was not admissible in evidence and thus, before permitting to exhibit document Annex. 2, the respondent No. 1 learned Addl. Civil Judge should have first decided the objection of the petitioners- defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No. 2 has not filed any reply and he has argued tat under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is not maintainable as there is no basic illegality or irregularity in the impugned order Annex. 3. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners and the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No. 2 and gone through the materials available on record. In R. V. E. Venkatackhala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V. P. Temple and Anr. (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if an objection about admissibility of the document is raised before such endorsement was made, the court is obliged to from its opinion on question of admissibility and express the same. In my considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to direct the respondent No. 1. learned Addl. Civil Judge to first decide the objection about admissibility of document (Annex. 2) in question taken by the petitioners-defendants, before proceeding further in the case. " Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent No. 1 learned Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bhilwara to decide the objection of the petitioners- defendants about admissibility of the document Annex. 2 in question before making further progress in the case. . ;