JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the order dated 3-9-12 passed by IX ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No. 84-A/10 whereby application filed by petitioner under Section 151, CPC was dismissed, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from respondent No. 1, for which agreement was executed on 22-6-07. It was alleged that as per agreement, balance consideration was to be paid within a period of two months. It was alleged that before expiry of that period the respondent No. 1 sold the property to the respondent No. 2 on 3-8-07. It was alleged that the petitioner was always ready and willing to purchase the property, therefore, suit filed by the petitioner be allowed and respondents be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner. The suit was contested by the respondents. It was alleged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that prior to agreement dated 22-6-07, which was in favour of petitioner, the respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sale the suit property to the respondent No. 2, vide agreement dated 10-2-07 and possession was also handed over to the respondent No. 2. It was alleged that in compliance of agreement dated 10-2-07 sale deed was also executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 on 3-8-07. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence at the stage of evidence of the respondents an attempt was made to get the agreement dated 10-2-07 exhibited. At that stage an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151, CPC, wherein it was prayed that the agreement dated 10-2-07 is not properly stamped, therefore, the same cannot be exhibited. The application was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the parties, learned Court below dismissed the application, hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that since the agreement dated 10-2-07 is not properly stamped as per Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in dismissing the application filed by petitioner. Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act reads as under which has came in force w.e.f. 13-8-02:-- “Art. 5. Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act reads as under which has came in force w.e.f. 13-8-02:-- “Art. 5. Agreement or memorandum of an agreement.-- (e) If relating to sale of immovable property-- (i) When possession of the property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered without executive the conveyance. The same duty as a conveyance (No. 20) on the market value of the property. 4. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (3) M.P.H.T. 6 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act categorically provides that a document not duly stamped shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the word "for any purpose", if given their natural meaning, as they should, would include a collateral purpose as well. It is submitted that in view of this, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that indisputedly the sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 3-8-07. It is submitted that in the sale deed also there is a recital about the agreement dated 10-2-07. It is submitted that as per Section 4 of Stamp Act, 1899 if various documents are executed for one transaction, then it is only the principal document which is required to be duly stamped. It is submitted that since the principal document was sale deed, which was duly stamped, therefore, learned Court below committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the agreement dated 10-2-07 was not properly stamped, then too, for collateral purpose the same can be admitted in evidence and can also be exhibited. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 6. Undisputedly, the agreement with the petitioner is dated 22-6-07. Sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 is dated 3-8-07 and the alleged agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dated 10-2-07. The only dispute is relating to the agreement dated 10-2-07 which is not properly stamped. 6. Undisputedly, the agreement with the petitioner is dated 22-6-07. Sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 is dated 3-8-07 and the alleged agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dated 10-2-07. The only dispute is relating to the agreement dated 10-2-07 which is not properly stamped. Section 4 of Stamp Act on which reliance is placed by respondent No. 2 reads as under:-- “Section 4. Several instruments used in single transaction of sale, mortgage or settlement.--(1) Where, in the case of any sale, mortgage or settlement several instruments are employed for completing the transaction, the principal instrument only shall be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule 1 for the conveyance, mortgage or settlement and each of the other instruments shall be chargeable with a duty of one rupee instead of the duty (if any), prescribed for it in that Schedule. (2) The parties may determine for themselves which of the instruments so employed shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the principal instrument: Provided that the duty chargeable on the instrument so determined shall be the highest duty which would be chargeable in respect of any of the said instruments employed.” 7. From Section 4 of Stamp Act it is evident that the stamp duty prescribed for the conveyance, mortgage or settlement is chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule 1 of Stamp Act on the principal instrument only and it is the parties who has to determine themselves which of the instruments so employed be deemed to be the principal instrument. Thus, from bare perusal of the aforesaid section it is evident that there should be several documents for completing the transaction, meaning thereby all the documents must have been executed at one time for completing the transaction. 8. In the present case, it is not the situation. Since in the agreement dated 10-2-07 there is a recital of handing over the possession and the document is not properly stamped as per Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, therefore, it can safely be said that the document is not properly stamped. 8. In the present case, it is not the situation. Since in the agreement dated 10-2-07 there is a recital of handing over the possession and the document is not properly stamped as per Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, therefore, it can safely be said that the document is not properly stamped. In the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra), this Court finds that the learned Court below was not justified in allowing the document in evidence for any purpose including collateral purpose. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order is set aside with a direction that the agreement dated 10-2-07 cannot be allowed in evidence for any purpose. 9. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.