Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1673 (RAJ)

Babulal Sharma, S/o Badri Narain Sharma v. Rahul Maheshwari, Son of Late Shri C. b. Gupta

2024-12-06

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
Order : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) being dissatisfied with the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in civil suit No. 4/2015 whereby the application filed by defendant under Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act of 1998’) has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant No.2 and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for specific performance and permanent injunction in which the defendant filed an application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 as well as Section 151 CPC before the trial Court that the so-called agreement dated 02.06.2004 is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, so, the said document is inadmissible in the evidence but the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel further submits that it is an admitted position that the said document is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, so the trial Court had to impound the said document and it should have send the so-called agreement to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the stamp duty and penalty thereon. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the so-called agreement is insufficiently stamped unregistered. So the trial Court ought to have impounded the said document and the same should have been sent to the Collector (Stamps). So the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the trial Court qua application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 deserves to be set aside. Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the trial Court qua application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 stands set aside The trial Court is directed to impound the so-called agreement dated 02.06.2004 and send the same to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the stamp duty and penalty thereon. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.