Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the sale -deed dated 22nd February, 1993 against the defendant -respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application dated 6th March, 2003 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission of the Court to allow the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence in respect of two sale -deeds dated 15.12.1989 and 22.02.1993. The trial court, vide its order dated 4th March, 2004, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier the plaintiff had filed one application on 13th May, 1999 under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC to issue directions to the defendants to produce original sale -deeds dated 15.12.1989 and 22.02.1993 but the same was dismissed on 15.02.2001. He contended that both the documents are in possession of the defendants, therefore, he may be permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing the Photostat copies of the said documents and the same may be exhibited in the case. He contended that the trial court has committed an illegality by rejecting his application on the ground that both the sale -deeds are on insufficient stamps and unregistered, therefore, they are not admissible in evidence and, as such, their secondary evidence cannot be allowed to be adduced whereas they were admissible for collateral purpose. He contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and the same may be set -aside.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court rightly rejected the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner as the documents, in question, are on insufficient stamps and unregistered, therefore, no interference should be made in the order passed by the trial court. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 4th March, 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and Ors. v. : [2003]2SCR564 , considered the similar controversy and held that unstamped and unregistered sale -deed, though does not convey title to the vendee and not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. This Court also took the same view in Roshan Bai Daughter of Shri Ram Chandra v. Madan Lal S/o Shri Bhuralal, ILR 2007 (Raj.) 379.;