JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 185 of 1999 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. By the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed on contest on the ground of non-compliance of the Court’s order regarding deposit of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the impounded agreement for sale which was sought to be enforced by the plaintiff by filing the suit for specific performance of contract against the principal defendant/respondent no.1. 2. After filing this appeal, several interlocutory applications were filed by the plaintiff/appellant in this appeal. An application seeking interim injunction by restraining the principal defendant/respondent no.1 from transferring and/or alienating the suit property and/or creating any third party interest therein was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in this appeal. On the said application, initially an order was passed on 25th September, 2012 by restraining the principal defendant/respondent no.1 from transferring, alienating, encumbering or from changing the nature and character of the suit property during the pendency of this injunction application. 3. Subsequently on 8th October, 2012, another interim order was passed by restraining the principal defendant/respondent no.1 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit property and/or creating any third party interest in relation to the suit property for a period of six weeks after reopening of this Court after annual vacation for the year 2012 with liberty to the appellant to apply and obtain extension of the interim order, but upon notice to the other side. 4. Subsequently on 17th December, 2012, another interim order was passed. By the said order, the appellant was directed to show his bona fide by depositing Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakh) only with the learned Registrar General of this Court by two weeks after the reopening of this Court after winter holidays for the year 2012. 4. Subsequently on 17th December, 2012, another interim order was passed. By the said order, the appellant was directed to show his bona fide by depositing Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakh) only with the learned Registrar General of this Court by two weeks after the reopening of this Court after winter holidays for the year 2012. It was also provided in the said order that the interim order, already granted, will continue till 31st January, 2013 with liberty to the appellant-petitioner to apply for extension of the same on the selfsame application upon notice to other side with a rider that in the event, the appellant fails to deposit Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakh) only within the time as above, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 17th December, 2012, the said sum of Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakh) only was deposited by the appellant-petitioner on 16th January, 2013. Thereafter by a subsequent order passed on 31st January, 2013, the interim order already granted on 17th December, 2012 was directed to be continued till the disposal of the application for injunction. 6. The interim injunctions, which were passed by this Court from time to time, as mentioned above, were ultimately made absolute by this Court on 26th February, 2016. 7. Another application was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the said appeal seeking addition of Mr. Choudhuri’s client being the subsequent transferee of a part of the suit property from the defendant/respondent no.1. Such prayer was allowed by this Court. The subsequent transferee was impleaded as respondent no.2 in this appeal. 8. On an application for injunction filed by the appellant being CAN 7128 of 2015, an interim order of injunction was passed by restraining the added respondent no.2 from changing the nature and character of the suit property and/or raising any construction and/or transferring and/or creating any third party interest therein till the disposal of the said application for injunction. The said application is yet to be disposed of. 9. In addition to the above mentioned applications filed by the appellant, the plaintiff/appellant also filed two other applications; one for appointment of receiver over the part of the suit property which was purchased by the added respondent no.2 . The said application is yet to be disposed of. 9. In addition to the above mentioned applications filed by the appellant, the plaintiff/appellant also filed two other applications; one for appointment of receiver over the part of the suit property which was purchased by the added respondent no.2 . In the said application, it is alleged that despite injunction order was passed restraining the added respondent no.2 from raising any construction in the suit premises, the added respondent no.2 is continuing with the work of construction in the suit premises. Another application seeking police help for enforcement of the order of injunction passed against the added respondent no.2 has also been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 10. Those two applications are listed for hearing today before this Court. While those two applications were taken up for hearing we were invited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the formalities regarding filing of paper books etc. 11. Since all the parties are now before us and the impugned order is of such nature, the legality of which can be tested by this Court in this appeal purely on a question of law, we have decided to dispose of the instant appeal on merit. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the merit of the appeal and considered the materials on record. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case. 12. We have already indicated above that the instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract filed against the defendant/respondent No.1 on the ground of non-compliance of the Court’s order regarding deposit of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the impounded agreement for sale. The learned trial judge held that since the deficit stamp duty and the penalty as assessed by the Collector on the impounded agreement for sale i.e., Exhibit-2 has not been paid by the plaintiff/appellant, the agreement for sale which is the very foundation of the suit cannot be admitted into evidence and if the said document cannot be admitted into evidence, the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the suit for specific performance of contract cannot be granted in this suit. 13. 13. Though the learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as nine issues in the said suit, but the learned Trial Judge, while dismissing the said suit, did not consider and/or decide all those issues excepting the Issue No. 3 i.e., “Was there any agreement between the parties with regard to sale of suit property on 26-12-93?” Dismissal of the suit by deciding one of the issues out of nine issues framed in the said suit is contrary to the provision contained in Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which gives a mandate upon the Court to decide all the issues in the suit at a time. As such, on this score alone the judgment and decree which is impugned in this appeal cannot be retained. 14. In course of hearing of this appeal, we were addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to the legality of the findings drawn by the learned Trial Judge even on the issue regarding sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on the said agreement for sale which was sought to be enforced by specific performance of contract in the said suit. 15. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant that having regard to the fact that Schedule-IA of the Stamp duty on Instruments in West Bengal came into operation w.e.f. 31st January, 1994, stamp duty on conveyance was not required to be paid on the agreement for sale in terms of the amended provision of Article 5(d) of Schedule-IA of the said amended Act, as the said agreement for sale was executed between the parties on 26th December, 1993. According to him, since the agreement for sale was executed between the appellant and the mother of the defendant/respondent no.1 on 26th December, 1993 i.e. prior to the amendment, as referred to above, came into operation, his client was not required to pay stamp duty as per the amended provision, rather his client was required to pay the stamp duty as per the Stamp Duty Act which was prevalent as on the date of execution of the said agreement for sale. 16. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent no.1 disputes such contention of Mr. Banerjee. 16. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent no.1 disputes such contention of Mr. Banerjee. He submits that the document is required to be stamped as per the provision of the Stamp Act applicable on the date when the document is sought to be enforced and not with reference to the date when the document was executed. 17. Since we have already indicated above that the impugned judgment cannot be retained on record as the judgment was not passed in the suit by adhering to the provision of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we set aside the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal on the said ground itself by making it clear that all issues framed in the suit and/or additional issue which may be framed in the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties including the Issue No. 3 are left upon to be decided by the learned Trial Judge on merit. 18. That apart, we are not unmindful of the provision of Section 36 of the Stamp Act which provides that inadmissibility of the document for non-payment of sufficient stamp duty cannot be questioned, if the document bearing insufficient stamp is admitted into evidence. Here, we find that though the agreement for sale was impounded, but at the same time the said document was admitted into evidence as Exhibit-2. Once the said document was exhibited, admissibility of the said document for insufficient stamp cannot be called into question. 19. Before parting with, we like to mention here that the added respondent no.2 was not a party in the suit before the learned Trial Judge. Since added respondent no.2 is the subsequent transferee of a part of the suit property from the defendant/respondent no.1 and the fate of such sale is dependent upon the result of this suit, we feel that the suit should be decided in the presence of the subsequent transferee also. As such, we add the subsequent transferee who has already been added as respondent No.2 in this appeal, as added defendant No. 2 in the suit. 20. The plaintiff/appellant is directed to serve a copy of the plaint upon the added respondent no.2 and/or its learned advocate-on-record appearing before this Court in course of this week. 21. As such, we add the subsequent transferee who has already been added as respondent No.2 in this appeal, as added defendant No. 2 in the suit. 20. The plaintiff/appellant is directed to serve a copy of the plaint upon the added respondent no.2 and/or its learned advocate-on-record appearing before this Court in course of this week. 21. Leave is granted to the added defendant no.2 to file written statement within four weeks from the date of service of the copy of the plaint upon it and/or its learned advocate. 22. The learned Trial Judge may frame additional issue, if necessary, after considering the pleadings of the parties and decide all those issues including the issues which have already been framed in the suit in accordance with the law. 23. We further direct that the interim order of injunction which was passed by this Court from time to time against the defendant/respondent no.1, as indicated above, will continue till the disposal of the suit. 24. We further make it clear that the interim order which was passed by this Court against the added respondent no.2 will continue for a further period of twelve weeks with this rider that in the event any application is filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking injunction against the added respondent no.2 before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court will make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction as early as possible, but before expiry of the injunction order as granted herein above. 25. It is further made clear that in the event, the court feels any difficulty in disposing of the plaintiff’s application for injunction concerning the added respondent no.2, the learned Trial Judge will be free to extend the operation of this interim order of injunction till the disposal of the application and the learned Trial Judge will decide the said application for injunction on its merit after giving opportunity of filing objection to the added defendant no.2 in connection with the injunction proceeding. 26. The money which has already been deposited by the plaintiff/appellant to show his bona fide in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17th December, 2012 will remain in deposit with the learned Registrar General of this Court. The fate of such deposit will ultimately abide by the result of the suit. 27. 26. The money which has already been deposited by the plaintiff/appellant to show his bona fide in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17th December, 2012 will remain in deposit with the learned Registrar General of this Court. The fate of such deposit will ultimately abide by the result of the suit. 27. The learned Trial Judge is also requested to make all endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 28. Since we have not decided the appellant’s application for receiver and/or grant of police help on merit, it is made clear that in the event the plaintiff/appellant is so advised, he may renew such prayer before the learned Trial Court. 29. Let the lower court records be sent down to the court below immediately by Special Messenger at the cost of the plaintiff/appellant to be deposited in course of this week. 30. The appeal and the applications filed in connection with this appeal are disposed of. 31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Appeal Disposed of.