[2025:RJ-JP:655] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2010 Narendra Kiumar Badana S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Badana, 432- B/1 Gandhi Nagar Makarwali Road Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Distt. Judge Fast Tract No. 1, Ajmer. 2. Hari Om Agarwal Son Of Shri Baj Nath Agarwal, 194/8, Bakshi Ji Ki Kothi, Ajmer Presently Resident At 519- E/1, Near Hotel Aram, Lic Colony, Christanj Ganj, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.4, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.103/2006 whereby the said court dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ’the plaintiffs’) filed an affidavit in which he marked mortgage deed dated 19.10.1995 as Ex.1. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant had objected before the trial court that the said document is improperly stamped and not registered, so it was inadmissible in the evidence but trial court vide order dated 30.01.2010 dismissed [2025:RJ-JP:655] (2 of 3) [CW-5836/2010] the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the said document is mortgage deed, so it was required to be registered but the trial court has wrongly dismissed the application. So, order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments (1) Veeramachineni Gangadhara Rao Vs. The Andhra Bank Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1613 and (2) Hansia and another Vs. Bakhtawarmal and Others reported in AIR 1958 Rajasthan 102. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that plaintiff had filed present suit for recovery of the money, which was advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant and defendant had given property as a security of the money. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that it was not mortgage a deed, but it was simply an agreement, so no registration was required. So, trial court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had filed present suit for recovery of the money against the defendant. Defendant had executed the said agreement for borrowing the money and the said agreement was not amounted to mortgage deeds because it was simply a recovery suit. So, in my considered opinion, trial [2025:RJ-JP:655] (3 of 3) [CW-5836/2010] court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /304