Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1132 (JHR)

MOD NARAYAN JHA v. SANJEEVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

2015-09-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 06.07.2015 in Title Suit No. 539 of 2013 whereby, the application seeking an order for impounding the documents and for realisation of penalty, if any, has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 539 of 2013. The suit was instituted for a declaration that registered sale deed dated 19.11.2010 and other sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 or through defendant no. 8 are fraudulent, collusive and farzi transaction and thus, are not binding upon the plaintiffs. A further prayer for a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,55,644.88 with 22.5% per annum has also been made in the suit. In the pending suit only defendant no. 3 appeared though, steps for substituted service through paper publication was taken by the plaintiffs. The defendant no. 3 failed to file written statement and therefore, vide order dated 20.08.2014 she was debarred from filing written statement. In the pending suit, the plaintiffs made an application for impounding ext. 2 to 2(e). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Section 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and submits that to avoid a possible plea of inadmissibility of the receipts issued by the defendant no. 1, the petitioners filed application for impounding the said documents. It is contended that though, the petitioners are not liable to supply the deficit stamp fee for the receipts which were issued by the defendant no. 1 however, in order to overcome the provision under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the petitioners filed application dated 15.06.2015 for payment of stamp value and penalty, if any. 4. Without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 is a cryptic order. Only on the ground of delay and that the petition was not supported with affidavits, the application dated 15.06.2015 under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC r/w Section 33(1) & (2) and Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed. Only on the ground of delay and that the petition was not supported with affidavits, the application dated 15.06.2015 under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC r/w Section 33(1) & (2) and Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed. Though, Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides that “once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such an admission shall not, except as provided under Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped”, and in my opinion provision under Section 61 is not attracted at this stage in the pending suit however, I am of the opinion that application dated 15.06.2015 should have been decided by the trial court on merits. It is well settled that the authorities; administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, all are under a duty to give reasons. In “Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Workers Union” (1974) 3 SCC 318 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “5. ...........The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions”. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, impugned order dated 06.07.2015 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding application dated 15.06.2015, afresh. Petition allowed.