R.M. Borde, J.

1. The learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad has forwarded this reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The points formulated by the learned District Judge in the statement submitted to High Court are as noted below :

I. Whether the interpretation of term “instrument” used in section 147 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 made in the case reported as AIR 1991 SC 401 ( between Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Pramod Gupta) can be extended to the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act viz. for clause no. 16 from Schedule I annexed to Bombay Stamp Act.

II. Whether in view of the interpretation of term, “instrument” made by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid case law, said clause of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act needs to be treated as invalid.

III. Whether due to interpretation of provisions of Order 21 Rule 94 of Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the provisions of Indian Registration At made in 2007 SCW 4080 ( B. Arvindkumar Vs. Govt of India) needs to be used at the time of recovering the Stamp Duty on Sale certificate issued by Civil Court.

IV. Whether in view of the interpretation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid two c