Hon'ble VYAS, J.— In all the above writ petitions, common question is involved, therefore, all these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the purpose of taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court is considering facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 841 /2009.

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the validity of order dated 5.11.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Cases No. 21/2007, 22/07, 23/07, 24/07, 28/07, 29/07, 31/07 and prayed that the said order may be quashed and it may be declared that the document agreement dated 3.12.2004 is sufficiently stamped.

3. As per facts of the case, the petitioners filed suit for specific performance and injunction against the respondents narrating therein that a plot situated at 335, Eklavya Colony was of the ownership of respondent No. 1 and the same was agreed to be sold to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 65/- per Sq. ft.and, for that purpose, agreement dated 3.12.2004 was executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. By the said agreement, in all 10 plots were sold by respondent No. 1 and Rs. 70,000/- were paid on the same day and this fact was mentioned in the agreement dated 3.12.2004 and it was mentioned in the agreement that rest of the amount shall be paid at the time of registration of the document. In the agreement, it was also mentioned that it shall be the duty of the respondents to get no-objection certificate from the Eklavya Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd. and after getting no objection certificate the registration shall be done after payment of the rest of the amount by the petitioners. It is also specifically mentioned that possession of the land in question was not transferred and it was agreed to be transferred after registry of the sale in question.

4. In the suit it is stated by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to pay the rest of the amount and to take over possession but the respondent for one or the other reason is trying to delay the registration of the document on the count that no objection certificate has not been obtained and he is trying hard to obtain the same.

5. As per facts narrated in the suit, the petitioners came to know through the news paper cutting that the plot in question has been sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 although he was having no such right in view of the fact that agreement in question was already executed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prayed in the suit for performance of the agreement dated 3.12.2004.

6. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement on 22.3.2007 and respondent No. 2 filed written-statement on 26.5.2007. After framing of issues, petitioner No. 1 filed his affidavit to substantiate his claim and marked the agreement dated 3.12.2004 as exhibit. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Sections 35 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and raised objection that the said agreement was executed upon stamp of Rs. 100/-, therefore, it was not duly stamped and was inadmissible in evidence.

7. The petitioners filed reply to the above application submitting that the document in question has already been executed in the case and various other cases pending before the Court and the same document has been admitted in evidence. Further, decree on the basis of above document has already been passed, therefore, the respondents cannot now raise objection with regard to admissibility of the document.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that ten plots were sold through the agreement in question dated 3.12.2004 and ten different suits were filed on the basis of the said agreement. In three of the suits, the document in question has already been exhibited without any objection and, thereafter, decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2008/5.8.2008.

9. Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for both the side

Click Here to Read the rest of this document