AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. During the evidence of P.W.1, he intended to produce a document pertaining to sale of black granite and an objection was raised. By the impugned order, the objection was upheld, holding that the document requires registration and since the same is not registered, it cannot be admissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present petition. Smt. Kavya Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the Trial Court has failed to consider the document in a proper prospective. That a registration is wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that in terms of the agreement, the same pertains only to moveables and not immoveables. That the Trial Court has committed an error by passing the impugned order.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order contending that there is no error committed by the Trial Court that calls for interference. That the document is not registered and hence, the same is not admissible.
On hearing learned Counsels and examining the impugned order, I'' am of the considered view, that the Trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order. The Trial Court has failed to appropriately consider the contents of the agreement. Even assuming that it has come to the conclusion that the document is not registered or insufficiently stamped, necessarily the procedure under law for impounding and imposing penalty or otherwise would have to be followed. None of these procedures have been followed. The Trial Court would, therefore, necessarily consider the document with respect to its contents while arriving at a conclusion as to whether the document requires registration or not and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law pertaining to impounding or otherwise. The Trial Court having failed to do so, therefore, is required to reapply its mind and pass appropriate orders. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 25.11.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal, in O.S.No.132/2006 at Annexure-G is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to rehear the issue and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.