Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 827 (RAJ)

LRs of Ramesh Maglani v. Smt. Shashi Goyal

2015-04-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 2. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application dated 30.10.2013 before the trial court, inter alia, indicating that the original agreement to sale dated 29.11.1989 has been produced by him in pending proceedings before the court of SDO, Sriganganagar, wherein he has filed application under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 ('the Act') and, therefore, prayed that till such time that the document dated 29.11.1989 is impounded and the petitioner pays requisite stamp duty after determination, the proceedings before the trial court be stayed. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff questioning the admissibility of the document. 4. The trial court by its order impugned construing the application filed by the defendant as a prayer for impounding the document and referring the same to the Sub-Registrar for determination of requisite stamp duty, rejected the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, the prayer made before the trial court was limited to the extent that till such time that the SDO takes action on the application filed by the defendant, the proceedings before the court may be stayed, however, the trial court wrongly construing the application has dismissed the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the document in question was neither registered nor it bear requisite stamp duty, the petitioners did not taken any action for getting the same duly stamped for all these years and after the stage of his evidence came before the trial court, the present application has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings and, therefore, the trial court rightly rejected the application. 7. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the direction dated 15.12.2014 issued by this Court, the petitioner has filed application under proviso-(e) to Section 39 of the Act alongwith a certified copy of the agreement to sale. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. From the perusal of Annex.-6, it is apparent that the petitioner had not sought referring of the document to the Sub Registrar and had simply sought stay of the proceedings on account of his filing of application under Section 35 of the Act before the SDO. 10. From the perusal of order passed by the trial court, it is apparent that the said application was apparently misconstrued and was treated as application under Section 35 of the Act and the prayer was taken as prayer seeking impounding of the document, which has resulted in passing of the order impugned, which cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. 11. The trial court may either re-decide the application filed by the petitioner dated 30.10.2013 or it may proceed to decide the application filed by the petitioner proviso-(e) to Section 39 of the Act.With the above observation and direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******