Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1035 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. Bhanwar Lal

2025-04-07

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Despite service, none appears for the respondents. 2. The present two writ petitions arise out of the same suit proceedings and hence, are being heard together and decided by this common order. 3. The facts as averred in the plaint by the plaintiff-petitioner are that two residential plots were purchased by the parents of the plaintiff and defendants No.8 to 10 vide agreements to sell dated 22.07.1980. However, the possession of the said plots was forcibly taken by defendants No.1 to 5. Hence, the present suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction was filed. 4. On 03.12.2012, an application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC was filed by the plaintiff petitioner with a prayer to take the original agreements to sell dated 22.07.1980 on record. It was submitted in the application that although the photocopies of the said agreements were annexed along with the plaint but as the original documents had been furnished for blueprints qua patta inquiry, they could not be placed on record along with the plaint. The said agreements being the whole basis of the suit, were prayed to be taken on record. 5. Vide order dated 01.03.2014, the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh (‘learned Trial Court’) proceeded to reject the application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC with an observation that both the said agreements were of valuation of more than Rs.100/- but were executed on mere stamps of Rs.2/- and Rs.3/- respectively. Further, the documents were neither registered nor properly stamped and hence, could not be taken on record, not being admissible in evidence. 6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2303/2014 has been preferred aggrieved of the above order dated 01.03.2014. 7. At the first instance, vide interim order dated 04.04.2014, further suit proceedings were stayed. However, the said interim order was vacated on 21.03.2023 and after the same, the suit proceedings re-commenced. 8. On 01.10.2024, an application under Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (‘the Act of 1998’) was filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner with a submission that he is ready to pay the sufficient stamp duty qua the agreements dated 22.07.1980 and hence, appropriate orders to get the documents sufficiently stamped and further to permit the same to be exhibited in evidence, be passed. 9. The application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 stood rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.10.2024. 9. The application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 stood rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.10.2024. The learned Trial Court observed that once the application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC had been rejected and the documents were not permitted to be taken on record being inadmissible in evidence, no order to get the documents stamped could be passed qua the documents which were not taken on record. 10. It is the said order dated 17.10.2024 which is under challenge in the second writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20098/2024. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of rejection of application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC was itself bad as though the nomenclature of the application was under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC it was infact in terms of Order 13(1), CPC which permits for production of documents at or before settlement of issues. Admittedly, the issues had not been framed till the date of filing of the said application and hence, the documents ought to have been taken on record. Further, the photocopies of the said documents had already been annexed with the plaint and therefore too, the original documents which were prayed to be taken on record ought to have been permitted. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the rejection of the said application on the ground of documents being insufficiently and unregistered was totally erroneous as the learned Trial Court was under an obligation to impound the documents at that stage itself. Learned counsel submitted that rather the Court should have suo moto, at the first instance itself, directed to impound the documents and pass appropriate orders. The rejection of the application was totally uncalled for. 13. Arguing on order dated 17.10.2024, learned counsel submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC was rejected on count of the documents being insufficiently stamped and registered and when the plaintiff himself prayed to get the documents sufficiently stamped, there was no reason for rejecting the said application. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that even plaintiff’s evidence had not commenced till that date and therefore also, even if the documents were permitted to be taken on record, the same could not in any manner prejudice any right of the defendants. 15. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that even plaintiff’s evidence had not commenced till that date and therefore also, even if the documents were permitted to be taken on record, the same could not in any manner prejudice any right of the defendants. 15. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. Order 13(1), CPC reads as under : “ Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues — (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plaint or written statement”. Order VII Rule 14, CPC provides as under : “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies — (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 16. A bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that all the documents which are relied upon by a plaintiff, are to be entered in a list and to be produced before the Court along with the plaint to be presented by him. If any such document is not entered or produced at the time of presentation of the plaint, it cannot be received in evidence on his behalf without leave of the Court. If any such document is not entered or produced at the time of presentation of the plaint, it cannot be received in evidence on his behalf without leave of the Court. Meaning thereby, the documents not entered in the list or not produced alongwith the plaint can be received in evidence subsequently at the hearing of the suit with leave of the Court. That is to say, there is not a complete bar on production of any document at a subsequent stage. The same can be permitted to be taken on record in accordance with law even at a subsequent stage. 17. But then, application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC as filed on behalf of the plaintiff has not been rejected by the learned Trial Court for the reason of it having been filed delayed but on the premise that the documents as prayed to be taken on record were not sufficiently stamped and registered. 18. In the specific opinion of this Court, the said observation of the learned Trial Court is totally erroneous. If the learned Court was of the opinion that the documents were not sufficiently stamped, it ought to have impounded the same at that stage itself and ought to have passed appropriate orders qua the deficit stamp duty. The learned Trial Court could not have rejected the application on the said count and that too, when even the issues had not been framed in the matter. 19. In view of above opinion, this Court is not even required to delve into order dated 01.10.2024 as the same is also erroneous on the face of it. Even if the learned Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC at the first instance, the application under Section 39 of the Act of 1998 whereby the plaintiff himself proposed to get the documents sufficiently stamped ought not to have been rejected on a mere technical ground that the earlier application had already been rejected. The learned Trial Court failed to observe that earlier application was rejected on count that the documents were insufficiently stamped. Therefore, when the plaintiff himself was willing to cure the said defect, the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the same. 20. The learned Trial Court failed to observe that earlier application was rejected on count that the documents were insufficiently stamped. Therefore, when the plaintiff himself was willing to cure the said defect, the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the same. 20. It is the settled proposition of law that when any instrument is produced before the Court which is not duly stamped or insufficiently stamped, the Court is under an obligation to impound the same. The said position of law has been reiterated in the case of Government of A.P. vs. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under : “16. A perusal of the said provision shows that when a document is produced (or comes in the performance of his functions) before a person who is authorized to receive evidence and a person who is in charge of a public office (except a police officer) before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, it is the duty of such person before whom the said instrument is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. The use of the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) shows that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. In our opinion, the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) does not mean 'may' but means 'shall'. In other words, it is mandatory to impound a document produced before him or which comes before him in the performance of his functions. Hence the view taken by the High Court that the document can be returned if the party does not want to get it stamped is not correct.” 21. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar and Ors., 2020 (3) RLW 2574 (Raj.) , wherein it was observed as under: “37. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar and Ors., 2020 (3) RLW 2574 (Raj.) , wherein it was observed as under: “37. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, the third question whether on production of unstamped document, the Court is duty bound to determine the stamp fee along with penalty, as per Section 35(1) of the Act or to impound the same under Section 33 of the Act and send the same to the Collector for determination of stamp duty and penalty in order to make the document admissible, is answered in the terms that if any instrument is presented before the Court, which is not duly stamped or insufficiently stamped, the Court is duty bound to impound the same and (i) if the party who produces such instrument in evidence is willing to pay the stamp duty or deficit stamp duty together with amount of penalty, to determine the same and upon deposit of the amount, so determined, with the Court, it shall be open for the Court to admit the instrument in evidence , or; (ii) in the event, however, the party which produces such instrument does not agree or is unable to remit the amount of stamp duty/deficit stamp duty and the penalty, the Court shall send the impounded instrument to Collector for determination of stamp duty and penalty, which shall be, only upon production/receipt of the certificate/endorsement of deposit thereof, received in evidence.” 22. In view of above settled position of law and in view of the observations and analysis made in the preceding paras, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned dated 01.03.2014 and 17.10.2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to take the documents dated 22.07.1980 on record and further to impound the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 23. Stay applications and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.