[2026:RJ-JP:45] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20673/2025 1. Dinesh S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Khatu Shyam Ji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 2. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Khatu Shyam Ji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 3. Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Dinesh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Khatu Shyam Ji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Harinarayan Kanoongo, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Reengus, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 2. Smt. Suresh Choudhary W/o Jagdish Prasad Choudhary, Aged About 50 Years, Raansar, Tehsil Navaglgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanwar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 06/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by Additional & District Session Judge, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 3 & 6 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1899’) seeking deletion of Ex.-1 from the record has been rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:45] (2 of 3) [CW-20673/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a photocopy document is not an instrument and, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. He further contends that the provision of Section 36 of the Act of 1899 is not applicable as the document which has been exhibited is a photocopy document and the same does not fall under the definition of an instrument. 3. Learned counsel further contends that even if the photocopy has been exhibited then it ought to have been impounded and sent for the proper stamping of the document, before it was being made admissible in evidence and therefore, prays that the order dated 14.11.2025 may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments titled as Vijay Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 4910/2023 (decided on 29.11.2023) and Durga Shankar Baretin Vs. Shayam Lal & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5511/2021 (decided on 19.09.2022). 5. Heard. 6. This Court finds that vide order dated 23.08.2018, defendants were directed to produce the original agreement to sell dated 06.09.2010 and by the same order, it was also directed that if the original was not filed by the defendant then the plaintiff would be entitled to lead secondary evidence on the said document. The said order has not been assailed by the petitioner. 7. On perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that while exhibiting the agreement to sell dated 06.09.2010 as Ex.-1, no objection was ever raised by the defendant. Further, it is pertinent to note that elaborate cross-examination has been [2026:RJ-JP:45] (3 of 3) [CW-20673/2025] conducted by the petitioner in respect to the said document from the witness of the plaintiffs. 8. The suit is pending since 2013 and the exhibiting of documents and cross-examination was completed by the learned Trial Court in the year 2018. Thereafter, in 2025, the said application has been submitted by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the filing of the application seeking deletion of Ex.-1 is merely a tactic to delay the suit proceeding. Thus, the application as filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court. 9. Moreover, the judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner at this stage when the permission to lead secondary evidence has not been challenged, nor any objection was raised while exhibiting of the documents. 10. This Court finds no error so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all objections as to the admissibility and proof of the concerned agreement to sell before the learned Trial Court during the course of hearing. 11. With the above observations, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/4