1 2026:CGHC:17022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 436 of 2026 1 - Snehlata Reddy W/o. Late Shri Suryprakash Reddy Aged About 68 Years R/o. Jecob Chal, Link Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Dharmendra Reddy S/o. Late Shri Suryprakash Reddy Aged About 43 Years R/o. Jecob Chal, Link Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Dheerendra Reddy S/o. Late Shri Suryaprakash Reddy Aged About 41 Years R/o. Jecob Chal, Link Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Megha Reddy D/o. Late Shri Suryprakash Reddy Aged About 40 Years R/o. Jecob Chal, Link Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Rahul Bajpai S/o. Late Shri Rohni Kumar Bajpai Aged About 68 Years R/o. Bajpai House, Jail Road Near Brihaspati Bazar Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate. For State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 13.04. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by Second District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit 2 No.374-A/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short, the CPC) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are defendants No.1 to 4 before the trial court where the present respondent No.1 is prosecuting a civil suit for specific performance of contract. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit land Khasra No.616/1 Area 0.284 Hect./0.70 Acre, situated at Juna Bilaspur (Jacob Chall), Tehsil and District Bilaspur, is recorded in revenue records in the names of husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 4. Out of total 0.70 Acre of land, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 4 namely Surya Prakash Reddy entered into an agreement with the mother of plaintiff Smt. Chandrakanti Bajpai to sale 8720 Sq.ft. of land on 31.12.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.19,11,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.15,11,000/- was given as advance. Subsequently, Surya Prakash Reddy died and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- more was obtained by the defendants time to time and thus the defendants have already obtained Rs.21,11,000/-. Subsequent to that, the agreement was renewed and its sale consideration was enhanced up to Rs.29,50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Since the mother of plaintiff was suffering from various ailment, the subsequent agreement dated 29.09.2023 was executed with the plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had served a legal notice to the defendants on 10.10.2017 and 24.12.2024 and requested for registration of the sale deed. The conditions of agreement was 3 again renewed and sale consideration was again enhanced on 10.03.2025 which was extended up to total remaining amount of Rs.9,05,000/-. Since the defendants could not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed civil suit for specific performance of contract. It is also the case of the petitioners that during pendency of the civil suit, the parties entered into a compromise and the defendants were ready to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and in furtherance thereof a sale deed was executed by the defendants on 04.06.2025, however, the Sub Registrar considered that the sale deed was undervalued and referred it for proper valuation of the property and for stamp duty to Collector Stamp by invoking the powers under Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1889, where the matter is pending for its consideration. Before the trial court, a compromise application was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which was considered by the trial court on 05.05.2025 and examined the genuineness and validity of said compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. Subsequently, on 10.05.2025 the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat where the Bench No.7 of Lok Adalat, Bilaspur, rejected the compromise application holding that the terms of compromise is suspicious under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thereafter, the plaintiffs evidence was recorded on 03.01.2026 and thereafter defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC alongwith the xerox copy of sale deed which was executed by them on 04.06.2025. The trial court vide its order dated 18.03.2026 rejected the application filed by the defendants on the ground that the defendants have filed xerox copy of sale deed and the said sale deed itself is not 4 complete and dispute with respect to its valuation and payment of stamp duty is under consideration before the Collector, Stamp. The said order dated 18.03.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants had filed the application along with documents in their support as party have entered into compromise and they have already made statement before the court about the compromise and executed the sale deed. The defendants want to bring on record the copy of sale deed in support of their submissions. The trial court ought to have allowed the application for the reason that the defendants have performed their part of the contract and to show their bonafide they have filed the document in support of their contention. The suit is for specific performance of contract. The defendants have executed the sale deed in furtherance of the contract and produced the copy of sale deed which could have been taken on record on behalf of the defendants, yet the trial court rejected the application. The defendants are only required to execute the sale deed and not to pay the requisite stamp duty as it is the duty of plaintiff/purchaser to pay the requisite stamp duty upon it. Thus, being satisfied their part of the compliance under the sale deed, the documents should be taken on record. The rejection of the application of the defendants dehors the mandate of Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the trial court be directed to take the document on record in accordance with law. 5 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. In the present suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract was originally entered into between Surya Prakash Reddy and Smt. Chandrakanti Bajpai on 31.12.2007. Subsequently, on 25.10.2010 the agreement was renewed and sale consideration was enhanced. The agreement was again renewed on 10.12.2013 and thereafter another agreement was alleged to be executed on 29.09.2023. True it is that the parties to the suit may enter into compromise at any time during pendency of suit, however, the trial court is required to examine the genuineness and validity of the terms of compromise under which the parties were agreed. In the present case, the original agreement was said to have been executed between Surya Prakash Reddy and Smt. Chandrakanti Bajpai on 31.12.2007 which was repeatedly renewed by enhancing its sale consideration. It transpires from the record that the trial court has examined the terms of compromise entered into between the parties on 05.05.2025 and observed the suspicious circumstances of compromise. Further, when the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat, on 10.05.2025, the Lok Adalat, after considering the suspicious circumstances of the terms and conditions of the compromise, rejected the application of compromise. Despite rejection of compromise between the parties, the defendants have executed the sale deed on 04.06.2025 and the Sub Registrar raised an objection about its undervaluation and referred the matter to Collector, Stamp, where the case (No.79/B-105/2024-25) is pending for its consideration. It further transpires from pleadings of the writ petition 6 that the plaintiff has been examined before the trial court on 03.01.2026, however, surprisingly, there is no averment that plaintiff had tried to file the said document of sale deed which got executed in his favour by the defendants. For the reasons best known to him, he has not filed the said document before the trial court and has not stated that defendants have already executed sale deed in his favour. Even copy of his deposition has not been annexed in the present writ petition. Further, it is the defendants who have filed the xerox copy of said sale deed saying that they have already complied with their part of agreement. 6. Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC provides duty of defendants to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. It is notice here the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC which reads as under: “1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.— (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents— (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 7 7. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC clearly provides that the documents which is required to be produced in the court by the defendants and is not produced by them, it shall not, without leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 8. Admittedly, the defendants have filed xerox copy of sale deed which is inadmissible in evidence. The said sale deed is the subject matter before the Collector Stamp with respect to its undervaluation and payment of proper stamp duty which is pending adjudication before the Collector Stamp. In view of bar relating to insufficient stamp instruments and the rules governing the field with respect to admissibility of the documents under the Indian Evidence Act, such a document cannot be admitted in evidence which is only a xerox copy of the document. In a suit for specific performance of contract, even though the defendants failed to produce the sale deed along with written statement as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC, the court retains discretion to permit production of document at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown that document is necessary for determining real controversy between the parties. In the present case, the plaintiff has not filed the said document in support of his agreement, but it is the defendants who filed the xerox copy of document that too after rejection of their compromise by the court. It is also nowhere pleaded in the petition that the said rejection of compromise was challenged by any of the parties. All these circumstances create suspicious circumstances and foundational defect to file document by the defendants in support of their case. 8 9. Though the defendants had right to file document in support of their defence, but the trial court rejected their application on the ground that the defendants sought to file xerox copy of sale deed and its registration itself is incomplete. The proper course for the trial court would be to allow the application in part by permitting the xerox copy to be taken on record subject to proof and admissibility of said sale deed, while expressly directing that it shall not be exhibited or relied upon unless the original sale deed is produced and requisite stamp duty and penalty is paid on it and admissible only after completion of its registration. 10. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the application filed by the petitioners only permitting to take the document on record subject to its proof and admissibility by expressly directing that it shall not be exhibited or relied upon unless the original sale deed is produced, after payment of its requisite stamp duty and penalty, if any, in accordance with law and only after completion of its registration. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 is set aside to that extent. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder