ORAL ORDER :- Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/original petitioners. None present for the respondents, though served.

2. By this review petition, the applicants are seeking review of the order dated 29th January, 2003 passed in the Writ Petition No. 7410 of 2002. The review is sought on two grounds. One is that a new and important fact has been discovered by the applicants which relates to the sale of the property by the respondents to a third party, and secondly that the penalty which could have been imposed under the Stamp Act could not have been more than double the amount of stamp duty to which the documents could have been normally subjected to and in the case in hand, the penalty has been imposed 10 times of the said stamp duty, and both the points were not considered by this Court while disposing of the petition in the order dated 29th January, 2003.

3. As regards the discovery of new and important fact, which is stated to be relating to the conveyance of the property in question in favour of a third party, merely because it is alleged to have come to the knowledge of the applicants subsequent to the passing of the order in question, that itself ipso facto cannot make it a discovery of a new and important fact after passing of the said order. New and important material or evidence can be said to have discovered for the purpose of seeking review of an order only in cases where in spite of exercise of due diligence, the same could not have been within the knowledge or could not have been produced earlier by the applicants. In order to establish that the material or evidence has been newly discovered so as to justify review of the order, on that count, it is absolutely necessary for the applicants to prove that in spite of diligent efforts on their part, the same could not be known to them or could not produced by them earlier to the passing of the order sought to be reviewed. The requirement of due diligence in the efforts of the applicants must be clearly established for invoking powers under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Any conveyance of the immovable property worth Rs. 100/- and above is necessarily required to be registered. Being so, merely because the applicants learnt about such conveyance after passing of the order in question, that itself will not lead to a conclusion that a new and important aspect of the matter has been discovered. It is not their case that they had made necessary efforts to get such information prior to the passing of the order in question, and if so, what were the efforts.

4. Besides, the order under challenge relates to imposition of penalty for failure on the part of the applicants to pay stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The occasion for imposition of penalty had arisen on account of assumption on the part of the parties that the document was a mere agreement for sale when in fact it also reveals clause relating to the delivery of possession of the property. Further, the Court on consideration of the fact that the document disclosed actual delivery of possession along with the said agreement has construed it as a document covered by the Article 25 Explanation-l of the First Schedule of the said Act, and therefore, the same is to be held as a conveyance and not a mere agreement. That being the subject-matter of dispute, and there has been a conveyance of the property subsequent to the said document, it is of no consequence for decision in the matter and that cannot be considered as discovery of a new and important matter for the purposes of exercise of powers under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to the order in question.

5. As regards the second ground is concerned, undoubtedly, the section 32A, Third proviso to sub-section (2)(a) thereof, provides that the amount of penalty should not exceed double the deficient portion of the stamp duty. However, it is doubtful, whether the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document