AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Khushlani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that vide order dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner was permitted to serve the respondent No.1 by private mode, in addition to regular mode of service, including service upon the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/s before the Trial Court. Accordingly, learned Counsel Mr. Khushlani has filed an affidavit that the respondent No. 1 is served through the Counsel who is appearing before the Trial Court, namely Mr. D. K. Wadhwani. Even though, there is a Vakalatnama filed on behalf of learned Counsel Mr. H. A. Biherani for the respondent No. 2, nobody appears today. In that view of the matter, the matter is taken up for final hearing/disposal.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the cross-examination of the defendant an objection was raised by the plaintiff, i.e. the petitioner herein for exhibiting a document which is titled as ‘Kararnama’. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said document is in the nature of relinquishment deed and, therefore, ought to have been registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. It is his further submission that in view of the fact that the same document being compulsorily registrable is not registered, as such, it cannot be exhibited.
The learned Trial Court has passed an order on 04.07.2024 on the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and exhibited that document by overruling the objection. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.
I have heard Shri Khushlani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has taken me through the impugned order, as also the document on record. It is his submission that that document is in fact a relinquishment deed, by which the plaintiff has relinquished the right in favor of the father of the defendant. Perusal of the order impugned shows that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that it does not seem to be a document of relinquishment requiring compulsory registration. It has, therefore, proceeded to exhibit the said document as Exhibit 131. However, the Trial Court has made it clear that mere exhibition of the said document does not make it admissible in evidence if not proved as per the Evidence Act. I do not find anything wrong or perverse in the order of the Trial Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of by clarifying that order dated 04.07.2024 which directs exhibition of document would not be meant and construed as the document at Exhibit 131 stands proved in accordance with law. It would remain an obligation of the party setting up that document to prove it in accordance to law and mere exhibition of a document would not clothe him with any right.
With this clarification, the writ petition is disposed of.