Nawab Ali vs Rahis Khan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—In pursuance of the public notice issued by this Court inviting the litigants to plead their case in the absence of their counsel, as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, Mr. Nawab Ali, the petitioner, and Mr. Rahis Khan, the respondent-plaintiff, are present before the court in person.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.4.2014 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-defendant u/s 17 of the Registration Act, and u/s 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract on the basis of alleged agreement dated 22.8.2007. One of the issues that were framed by the learned judge is "whether the suit for specific performance was maintainable on an insufficient stamp of an unregistered agreement dated 22.8.2007 or not?" During the course of the trial, the petitioner filed an application u/s 17 of the Registration Act read with Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, and objected to the marking of the agreement as an exhibit. However, by order dated 7.4.2014 the learned judge has dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Nawab Ali, the petitioner in person, has pleaded that he had never signed any agreement to sell on 22.8.2007. In fact, the said agreement is a forged one. Therefore, the application filed by him should not have been rejected by the learned judge.

On the other hand Mr. Rahis Khan, the respondent-plaintiff, has contended that the issue whether the agreement is a forged or not has never been raised by the petitioner during the course of argument on the application. Moreover, the learned judge has relied upon Section 49 of the Registration Act, as well as upon various judgments passed both by this Court and by the Apex Court. Therefore, Mr. Rahis Khan has supported the impugned order.

Heard both the parties and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner did not raise any contention with regard to the genuineness of the agreement to sell. Thus, a new plea cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. Moreover, the learned judge has relied on the proviso of Section 49 of the Registration Act, which permits that an unregistered document can be accepted in evidence in a suit for specific performance. Furthermore, the learned judge has relied on various judgments pronounced both by this Court, as well as by the Apex Court. Thus, the learned judge has given legally valid and cogent reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay application, too, stands dismissed.