Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE plaintiff -petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute on the basis of so -called lease -deed / Patta dt. 15.05.1986 alleged to have been issued by Gram Panchayat, Khori. The suit was contested by the defendants. During the trial of the suit, an objection was raised by the defendants in respect of admissibility of the Patta dt. 15.05.1986 in evidence being unstamped and unregistered and therefore the plaintiff moved an application under Section 11 read with Order 47(1) and Section 151 C.P.C. to admit the said Patta in evidence. The trial Court rejected the said application vide impugned order dt. 26.07.2005. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition before this Court. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, the same objection was raised by the defendants in the trial Court and vide order dt. 24.04.1995, the trial Court directed that since the disputed Patta which was impounded earlier, has been received back from Sub -Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Jaipur, and registration fee of Rs. 28/ - was payable on it since the same had not been paid, therefore, 10 times penalty along with registration fee, total Rs. 308/ - be paid. As per above order, the registration fee as well as penalty amount, both were deposited which is clear from order -sheet of the trial Court dt. 23.05.1995 (Annexure 1) and in such circumstances, the trial Court could not have reviewed its earlier order and committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner and in not admitting the document in evidence. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and document in question be admitted.
(3.) THE respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the writ petition along with one certificate dt. 23.10.2006 (Annexure R -2/1) wherein it has been pleaded that the Patta dt. 15.05.1986 was not issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khori, and the same is forged and fag one. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. It has, further, been pleaded that the document in question is unstamped and unregistered, therefore, the same can not be admitted in evidence.;