ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admissibility of a document dated 10.7.1997, styled or titled as memorandum of partition, it being unregistered and unstamped, is the core issue to be addressed in this writ petition. Brief relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents with averments, interalia, that the property in dispute (a shop) alongwith some other property came in the share of her father-in-law-Shri Nand Kishore as a result of a family settlement dated 10.7.1997 effected between him and his son Shri Radhe Shyam (husband of the petitioner) and Shri Nand Kishore executed a registered Will dated 28.9.2004 in her favour and after the death of Shri Nand Kishore on 8.10.2004, she has become sole owner of the shop. It was further averred that defendant-respondent-Shri Arvind Kumar without any legal right or title executed a registered sale deed dated 18.3.2000 in favour of defendant-respondent-Smt. Kamla Devi and she on the strength of the said sale deed has illegally entered into possession of the property in dispute. In support of her claim made in the suit, petitioner relied upon the document in question i.e. alleged family settlement dated 10.7.1997. The respondent-Smt. Kamla Devi in her written statement not only denied execution of said document, but also raised an objection that it being unregistered and unstamped is inadmissible in evidence. When the petitioner during the course of her examination-in-chief wanted to exhibit the said deed, objection was raised on behalf of the respondent and learned trial Court by way of impugned order dated 5.9.2011 came to a conclusion that deed dated 10.7.1997 is a partition deed whereby the property mentioned in it was partitioned and thus it required compulsory registration and for want of registration it is not admissible in evidence. It is this order passed in Civil Suit No.47/2005 pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar, is subject matter of challenge in this civil writ petition filed under Article 226 readwith Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted that no finding was given by the learned trial Court about the admissibility of the document for want of stamp duty. It is to be noted that no finding was given by the learned trial Court about the admissibility of the document for want of stamp duty. The defendant-respondent claimed before the Court below that this document is a partition deed and not merely a memorandum of family settlement and for want of proper stamp duty and registration is inadmissible in evidence. According to her, from the language of the document, it clearly emerged that it is not mere record of a past event but partition was effected for the first time through this document itself and as per the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, the document ought not only to be properly stamped but registered as well and as the document fell short of both these mandatory requirements, it was inadmissible in evidence. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial Court has on a misconstruction of the terms of the document wrongly construed it to be an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence for want of registration as per the Section 49 of the Act. It was submitted that recitals of the document manifest that there was oral partition between the parties to the document referred in it and thereafter it was executed only as a memorandum thereof. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that oral partition even of immovable property can be effected and later on it can be reduced or recorded in writing in the form of mere memorandum thereof. It was also submitted that although a label or nomenclature given to a document is not a real factor to determine the nature of the same but the test is of what was the real intention of the parties to execute a document which can be inferred or gathered from the recitals of the document. It was also submitted that in the present case the document in question has been acted upon and one of the parties to it, Shri Nand Kishore executed a registered Will dated 28.9.2004 of his share in the property to plaintiff-petitioner. It was also submitted that in the present case the document in question has been acted upon and one of the parties to it, Shri Nand Kishore executed a registered Will dated 28.9.2004 of his share in the property to plaintiff-petitioner. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the document in question is not a partition deed but merely a memorandum of a family settlement and hence, was neither required registration nor required to be stamped and is admissible in evidence for all purposes. Counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the language of the document lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was merely recordance on the terms and conditions already settled between the parties to the document and hence, it falls in the category of memorandum of family settlement /arrangement requiring neither any stamp duty nor required to be registered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document in question doest not contain any recital of a prior or completed partition, oral or written, but on its terms embodies a decision which is to be sole repository of the rights and title of the parties to the document i.e. according to which partition by metes and bounds had to be effected. It was submitted that learned Court below after construing the terms of the document correctly held it to be a instrument of partition under which and as a result thereof particular share of each party to it was determined and allotted for the first time and, therefore, it was required compulsory registration as per Section 17 of the Act and for want of registration it is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose as stipulated under Section 49 of the Act. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and perused the material made available on record including the document in question as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. In the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil Vs. Debi Singh Bhujil & Ors. reported in AIR 1966 SC 292 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below : “Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon. In the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil Vs. Debi Singh Bhujil & Ors. reported in AIR 1966 SC 292 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below : “Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties is be founded. It is generally prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the family arrangement is reduced in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and, where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document requires registration, because it is then that it would amount to a document of title declaring for future what rights and in what properties the parties possess. But a document which is no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to between the parties does not require compulsory registration under S.17 of the Registration Act.” In the case of Mathai Samuel and others. Vs. Eapen Eapen (Dead) By LRS. and others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 80 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "The primary rule of construction of a document is that the intention of the executants, which must be found in the words used in the document. The question is not what may be supposed to have been intended, but what has been said. We need to carry on the exercise of construction or interpretation of the document only if the document is ambiguous, or its meaning is uncertain. If the language used in the document is unambiguous and the meaning is clear, evidently, that is what is meant by the executants of the document. Contemporary events and circumstances surrounding the execution of the document are not relevant in such situations." In the case of Roshan Singh and others Vs. If the language used in the document is unambiguous and the meaning is clear, evidently, that is what is meant by the executants of the document. Contemporary events and circumstances surrounding the execution of the document are not relevant in such situations." In the case of Roshan Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 881, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : “It is well-settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration. The essence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of the partition transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of a previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally well-settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition and does not require registration. Sec. 17(1)(b) lays down that a document for which registration is compulsory should, by its own force, operate or purport to operate to create or declare some right in immovable property. Therefore, a mere recital of what has already taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document. Two propositions must therefore flow: (1) A partition may be effected orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, S. 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondary evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of S. 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If it be not registered, S. 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondary evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of S. 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (2) Partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered, to prove the fact of partition.“ Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that : “Partition, unlike the sale or transfer which consists in its essence of a single act, is a continuing state of facts. It does not require any formality, and therefore if parties actually divide their estate and agree to hold in severalty, there is an end of the matter.” It was also held that : “The true principle that emerges can be stated thus: If the arrangement of compromise is one under which a person having an absolute title to the property transfers his title in some of the items thereof to the others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied with, since the transferees derive their respective title through the transferor. If, on the other hand, the parties set up competing titles and the differences are resolved by the compromise, there is no question of one deriving title from the other, and therefore the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of s. 17 read with s. 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is created or declared by the document for the first time.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Muniraj Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451 has held that : “In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into to the extent permissible the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into to the extent permissible the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.G. SHIVALINGAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. & Ors. Vs. G.S. ESWARAPPA & Ors. reported in (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 189 has held that : "Though partition amongst the Hindus may be effected orally but if the parties reduce it in writing to a formal document which is intended to be evidence of partition, it would have the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property was allotted in partition and thus the document would be required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, if the document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act." A Singh Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Parmanand Setia Vs. Samlal & Ors. Reported in 2003 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 107 has held that : "When a document records the creation of a right in a party and extinction of right to other party , such document is required to be registered. Non-registeration is the consequence of defeating the payment of fees to the State for registration and thus, document is to be held to be inadmissible in law being contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act. " A Singh Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Luhar Tulsidas Narsibhai v. Vrajlal Lalju Vaghela reported in AIR 2007 GUJRAT 77 has held that : “There is a clear distinction between a document affecting or creating the partition and a document which is acknowledging the partition. " A Singh Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Luhar Tulsidas Narsibhai v. Vrajlal Lalju Vaghela reported in AIR 2007 GUJRAT 77 has held that : “There is a clear distinction between a document affecting or creating the partition and a document which is acknowledging the partition. If the partition has already taken place and the parties to the partition just prepare a memorandum of partition or an acknowledgement of the partition, then such partition is not created by the document and under such circumstances, such document, acknowledging the rights already conferred on the party would not fall within the mischief of Section 17 of the Act. The document, which creates a partition and affects the partition in presentee and by that document the rights of the parties are crystallised and each party is informed of their rights on the date of the deed itself, then, such document, being a document in presentee creating specific rights in favour of the parties, would be compulsorily registrable if it pertains to tangible, immovable property more than Rs. 100/-. Such a document if not registered would not be admissible because of the bar contained under S.49 of the Act. In the instant matter, when the parties had affected the partition in presentee, each of them was reserving certain rights in favour of each other. If the fact of the partition cannot be looked into because the document is unregistered, then, the rights flowing from the said partition also cannot be looked into. It would be improper to say that the fact of the conditions settled between the parties, which were as consequence of the partition, should be looked into. If the effect of the partition or the fact of the partition itself cannot be looked into, then, the benefits flowing from the said partition also cannot be looked into.” In the case of Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. If the effect of the partition or the fact of the partition itself cannot be looked into, then, the benefits flowing from the said partition also cannot be looked into.” In the case of Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 119 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the essentials of a family settlement in the form of following propositions : (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence: (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole the owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. In the case of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd Vs. Development Consultant Ltd reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles in respect of a document requiring compulsory registeration : (i) A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, (ii) such an unregistered document can however be used as an evidence for collateral purpose as provided in Section 49 proviso of the Registration Act, (iii) a collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction to effect which the law required registration, (iv) a collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, and (v) if a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratan Lal & Ors. Vs. Hari Shankar & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 Allahabad 180 has observed that 'Collateral Purpose' referred to under Section 49 of the Registeration Act has a limited scope and meaning. The term would not permit the party to establish that the deed created or declared or assigned or limited or extinguished a right to immovable property. Therefore, a deed treated either as Partnership Deed or Family Arrangement needed to be registered and an unregistered one could not be used even to prove that there was a partition and oral evidence regarding partition on the basis of such document could not be led as it was barred by Section 91 of the Evidence Act. In the light of the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is to be seen whether the document in question is mere a memorandum of a oral partition/family settlement/family arrangement arrived at between the parties to it or they partitioned the property between them for the first time as a effect of this document. In the light of the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is to be seen whether the document in question is mere a memorandum of a oral partition/family settlement/family arrangement arrived at between the parties to it or they partitioned the property between them for the first time as a effect of this document. To decide the question the recitals of the document is required to be seen which are as below:- ^^fy[kkoV ;k ;knk'rh caVokjkukek eSa uUnfd'kksj iq= jkecDl tkfr&czkge.k fuoklh&'khryk dk okl] lhdj rFkk nwljh vkSj ';ke iq= uUnfd'kksj tkfr ckzge.k fuoklh 'khryk dk ckl lhdj ds gSA gky vkckn lhxjkoV rglhy lhdj ftyk lhdj Jh jkecDl oYn y{ehukjk;.k czkge.k iqtkjh fuoklh 'khryk dk ckl lhdj dh iV~Vs'kqnk vkjkth ftldk iV~Vk uEcj&42 fnukad 30-11-1948 dk gS] ds ek/;e ls ,d laifr jkojktk Jh dY;k.k flag th ls [kjhn dh FkhA tks laifr 'khryk dk ckl lhdj esa vofLFkr jgh gSA ftl laifr ds lhekvksa esa mrj esa vke jkLrk nf{k.k esa vke jkLrk iwoZ esa os/k edjcu yky csxjkg ds edkukr if'pe esa jkuh lrh jksM+ vofLFkr gSA bl laifr esa jkecDl iqtkjh th ds nsgkUr ds ckn esjs o esjs yM+ds dk vk/kk fgLlk vk/kk&vk/kk fgLlk cjkcj dk gksrk gS ysfdu bl laifr esa eq>s uUnfd'kksj us 36 nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k esjs futh /ku ls djok;kA esjs iq= jk/ks';ke dk fuekZ.k dk;Z esa dksbZ vkfFkZd lg;ksx ugha jgk bl dkj.k pawfd iV~Vs'kqnk Hkwfe esa mldk 1@2 fgLlk jgk gSA blfy, ge nksuksa firk iq= us ;g O;oLFkk dj yh gS fd cuh gqbZ nqdkukr esa nqdku uacj 14] 17] 19] 22] 23] 24] 25] 26] 27] 28] 30] 35 Nr lfgr jk/ks/;ke dh jgsxhA ftudks jk/ks';ke tSls pkgs mi;ksx dj csps ;k fdjk;s ij ns ldsxkA eSa uUnfd'kksj bl ij ,srjkt ugha d:axk vkSj mijksDr nqdkuksa ds vykok ckdh nqdkukr tks cph gS muesa jk/ks';ke dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxk vr% ;g ;knnk'rh caVokjkukek fy[kkoV fy[k yh vkSj nksuksa firk iq= fcuk u'kk irk gks'k gokl ds gLrk{kj dj fy[kkoV rdehy dj nh gS tks t:j iM+us ij dke vk ldsA fefr vk"kk< lqnh 5 c`gLifrokj laor 2054 dk fnukad 10-7-1997A cdye jkeLo:i egktu lk{kh uUnfd'kksj o jk/ks';ke ds dgus ij gLrk{kj fd;kA ckypUn 10-9-1997 jk/ks';ke ds dg lk{; djhA pksFkey njth rk- 10-7-1997 nkeksnj izlkn 10-7-1997** From the perusal of document in question following facts clearly emerge out : (i) It was executed on 10.7.1997 between Shri Nand Kishore and his son Radhe Shyam. (ii) The property decribed in the document originally belonged to one Shri Roa Raja Kalyan Singh. (iii) The same was purchased by Shri Rambux (father of Shri Nand Kishore) from Shri Kalyan Singh vide Patta No.42 dated 30.11.1948. (iv) It was admitted by Shri Nand Kishore and his son Shri Radhe Shyam that each of them has 1/2-1/2 share in the property after the death of Shri Rambux. (v) Shri Nand Kishore alone constructed as many as 36 shops over the property from his own money without any financial contribution from Shri Radhe Shyam. (vi) Out of 36 shops constructed by Shri Nand Kishore over the property, by mutual understanding between them Shop No.14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 & 35 (total 12) were given to Shri Radhe Shyam with absolute right in them. (vii) Remaning shops were given in the share of Shri Nand Kishore and Shri Radhe Shyam had no right in them. (viii) Both Nand Kishore and Radhe Shyam put their signatures on the document. In the present case, it is an admitted fact by the petitioner that the property for which the document in question has been executed was of Shri Rambux, who purchased it from Shri Kalyan Singh by way of Patta dated 30.11.1948 and thus it was his self-acquired property. As per the averments made in the plaint Shri Rambux died in the year 1975 and, therefore, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property devoled solely upon his son Shri Nand Kishore being heir of Class-I and he alone became owner of the property and no title and right conferred upon Shri Radhe Shyam, grand son of Shri Rambux, because in the life time of Shri Nand Kishore he could not have obtained any share in it. Thus, on the date on which the document in question was executed Radhe Shyam had no antecedent title in the property. It is well settled legal position that where the suit property was not ancestral in nature, but a selfacquired property, the grand son in the presence of father being Class-I heir, is not entitled to inherit such property. Thus, on the date on which the document in question was executed Radhe Shyam had no antecedent title in the property. It is well settled legal position that where the suit property was not ancestral in nature, but a selfacquired property, the grand son in the presence of father being Class-I heir, is not entitled to inherit such property. From the reading of the document in question it is manifest that by way of this document not only shops mentioned in it were given to Shri Radhe Shyam but also right and title was conferred upon him in one half of the land for the first time. The document in question shows that it in self has tendency to create rights in favour of Radhe Shyam and extinguishes rights of Shri Nand Kishore in respect of half of the land and some of the shops constructed over it by Shri Nand Kishore. There is no whisper in the document that prior to its execution there was any oral partition or settlement between the father and son about the land or shops constructed over it and this document has been executed only as a memorandum or recordance of such prior partition. From the recitals made in the document it is emerging that for the first time it was agreed that each of them has 1/2-1/2 share in the land which originally belonged to Late Shri Rambux. It is also revealed from the document that the shops constructed over the land were partitioned between Shri Nand Kishore and Radhe Shyam by metes and bounds and each of them got his share of shops as absolute owner. Testing the document in question dated 10.07.1997, in the light of the above legal propositions and the language used in the document, this court is convinced that the document is not merely a memorandum or recordance of a prior partition/family settlement/family arrangement but it is an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration and for want of registration it is inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be admitted in evidence even to show that the suit shop came in the share of Shri Nand Kishore and he was entitled to execute will in respect of suit shop in favour of petitioner-plaintiff. If the document in question is tested in the light of the fact that Shri Rambux died in the year 1975 and the property, in respect of which this document has been executed, devolved upon Shri Nand Kishore alone, then it becomes clear that the document in question is a deed of transfer transferring share in the property in favour of Shri Radheshyam requiring compulsory registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and for want of registration, it has same effect as an instrument of partition has. So far as inadmissiblility of document in question for want of proper stamp duty is concerned, Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, as it was applicable at the time when the document in question was executed, provides that no instrument chargeable with any stamp duty under the Act shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose or shall be acted upon unless such instrument is duly stamped. As per the definition of the word "instrument" provided under the Act instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. In the present case, as already held, by way of document in question rights in part of the property in favour of Radhe Shyam have been created, transferred and extended and rights of Shri Nand Kishore in it have been extinguished and limited. Thus, the document in question is a "instrument" within the meaning of the Stamp Act. As per this provision, even if any right is recorded by way of a document, the same would also fall within the purview of instrument. As per Section 2(15), "instrument of partition" means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty and includes, when any partition is effected without executing any such instrument, any instrument signed by co-owners and recording, whether by way of declaration of such partition or otherwise, the terms of such partition amongst the co-owners. Thus, as per this definition even memorandum of past oral partition is included in the definition of "instrument of partition" requiring stamp duty. Thus, as per this definition even memorandum of past oral partition is included in the definition of "instrument of partition" requiring stamp duty. Thus, even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that the document in question is merely a memorandum of some past partition or family settlement or arrangement between Shri Nand Kishore and Shri Radhe Shyam regarding property to which it pertains, even then it was required to be duly stamped and in absence of the same it is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose unless the deficient duty andpenalty is paid. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Vs. Vinay reported in (2009) 2 SCC 532 has held that an unstamped or deficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. The net result of all this discussion is that the document dated 10- 07-1997 is inadmissible in evidence for all purposes not only it being unregistered but also it being unstamped. No purpose would be served even if petitioner offers to pay the deficient stamp duty alongwith penalty as the defect of non-registration is not curable. However, it is for the trial Court to decide whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the document is required to be impounded or not. Consequently, the petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.