Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 582 (RAJ)

Amari v. Sukhraj Gaur

2016-04-26

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') has been rejected on the ground that the a copy of the document in question is insufficiently stamped and, therefore, the same cannot be impounded for payment of the requisite stamp duty. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the document was not admissible in evidence, inasmuch as, the document in question is a receipt only and the same bears requisite stamp duty and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare look at the document reveals that the document in question is an agreement, which is required to bear stamp duty in terms of Article 5(c) of the Schedule attached to the Stamp Act. However, the same only bears a L l revenue stamp. Further, as the document is a copy and it is insufficiently stamped, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application as the document could not have been impounded. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the document, which has been titled as ^^cspku jlhn** , clearly indicates that the same contains all the requisites of an agreement, inasmuch as, the consideration, advance payment and the time etc. have been indicated in the document, which can safely be termed as an agreement between the parties and to that extent the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference. have been indicated in the document, which can safely be termed as an agreement between the parties and to that extent the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference. However, so far as the finding of the trial court that as the document is a copy of the original and the same cannot be impounded is concerned, the same is in ignorance of the provisions of Section 39(e) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1988 ('the Stamp Act') which provides that nothing contained in the said provision shall prevent the admission of a copy of any instrument or of an oral account of the contents of any instrument, if the stamp duty or a deficient portion of the stamp duty and penalty as specified in clause (a) of Section 39 is paid. In view thereof, the finding of the trial court to the said extent cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above, the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner for leading secondary evidence qua receipt dated 15.06.2004 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to lead secondary evidence of the document in question after-comply with the requirements of Sections 37 and 39 of the Stamp Act. The trial court would take steps inconformity with the provisions of Sections 37 and 39 of the Stamp Act as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer : (2001) 4 SCO 197 and followed by this Court in Sunita & Ors. v. Municipal Council & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9977/2013, decided on 10.04.2015. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is pending since 2012, the trial court shall proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible.