This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order admitting a document due to non-registration and insufficient stamp duty. The court found no mandate to interfere given the absence of prejudice to the defendants.
The civil revision petition is dismissed; the opinion on the document's nature is left open for the main suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1492 of 2014
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order in I.A.No.96 of 2013 in O.S.No.10 of 2005 dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, whereunder the learned Judge has allowed to receive the original document dated 14.01.2003. An objection has been raised by the defendants/petitioners that the said document should not be received both on the ground that the said document is a compulsorily registered document and was also not adequately stamped.
The contention of the respondents was to the effect that the document is only a power of attorney and the same is not a simplicitor agreement of sale or an authorization. So far as the aspect with regard to whether the agreement is required to be stamped, the same is the subject matter of C.R.P.No.1486 of 2014, which came to be disposed of today.
So far as the aspect whether it is a power of attorney or simplicitor recording agreement between the parties whereunder a mention was made about authorization having been given to an individual to sell the property, the same is subject matter of C.R.P.No.1486 of 2014 which is disposed of today ie., 04.07.2014.
As far as the present civil revision petition is concerned, the Court below recorded that even in the plaint itself a mention has been made with regard to this document dated 14.1.2003 and the said document is one of the material document to prove the suit claim against the defendant and hence, the same is required to be received
and no prejudice, as such, would be caused to the defendants/revision petitioners. There is delay in filing the original document into the Court on the ground the same was not available at the time of filing of the suit and discovered recently. Explanation offered by the respondent was found reasonable and was accepted by the Court below. There is no challenge of this reasoning of the Court below and in the facts of this case, receiving of the said document dated 14.01.2003 would really cause no prejudice to the revision petitioners.
In that view of the matter, I do not consider any reason to interfere with the orders of the Court below and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Economic Transport Organisation v New India Assurance Co.Ltd .[1] would contend that observations made by the learned Judge with regard to the nature of the document are totally unwarranted and would pray for deletion of that portion of the order wherein the Court below had expressed a view with respect to the nature of the document. A perusal of the para 6 whereunder the learned Judge had dealt with aspect about the nature of the document would only go to show that it is on account of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court had to deal with the said aspect and in that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to find fault with the finding of the Court below in dealing with the aspect by expressing a prima facie opinion about the document. The document dated 14.01.2003 has been tendered in evidence and validity, or otherwise of the document and the results that may flow from the same are the questions which would be required to be considered while dealing with the main issue in the case. In that view of the matter, I consider it appropriate to eschew the opinion expressed by the trial Court at this stage with regard to nature
of the document.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. However, it is left open for the parties to make all the submissions with regard to nature of the document at the time of hearing of the main suit.
_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Dt.4th July, 2014. PNV
[1] 2007(3) ALD 496
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Civil Judge inflicted error in admitting a document despite objections regarding non-registration and stamp duty.
Whether observations by the lower court regarding the nature of the disputed document were unwarranted at the interim stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Economic Transport Organisation v New India Assurance Co.LtdReferred¶10
Economic Transport Organisation v New India Assurance Co.Ltd 2007(3) ALD 496
Unidentified Plaintiff (Implied)
Defendants/Revision Petitioners
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
