Civil Revision Petition No. 5513 of 2011 · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated
24.09.2011, passed in I.A.No.788 of 2011 in O.S.No.2222 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the Court below directed the District Registrar of Stamps to impound the affidavit, dated
09.04.2002, and then send the same to it.
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that the District Registrar of Stamps has already expressed his opinion that the non- judicial stamp was not issued by the stamp vendor whose rubber stamp was affixed on it and therefore, as it is a forged and fraudulent one, the Court below ought not to have sent the affidavit for impounding. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the record. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed that the impugned order has already been given effect to. Further, this Court is of the view that mere production of a document by way of impounding and transferring the same to the Court concerned will not take the place of proof and it cannot be called as an evidence. The Court below rightly observed that mere impounding the document is not sufficient for proof, relevancy and admissibility and it is the duty of the parties to prove the contents of the document who relied on it. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court as there is no illegality, irregularity or irrationality committed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to put all the questions to the witnesses concerned regarding the said document at the time of trial of the suit and also rebut any presumption raised by the Court below on this aspect. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 25th January, 2012 DR
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.