ORDER :

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby petitioner’s applications dated 02.11.2018 and 03.12.2018 have been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) had filed a the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 08.05.2005. During the pendency of the suit, pursuant to objection raised by the petitioner-defendant, the learned trial court impounded the document and referred the same to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of appropriate stamp duty.

3. Pursuant to the reference so made by the trial court, a case was registered by the Collector (Stamps) and a demand of stamp duty and penalty to the tune of Rs.7,81,845/- has been raised.

4. Being confronted with such situation, the petitioner moved the aforesaid applications dated 01.11.2018 and 22.11.2018 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested the trial court to set aside the determination of duty and remand the same to the Collector (Stamps) for de novo determination, as the parties were not afforded any opportunity of hearing.

5. The petitioner’s aforesaid applications have been rejected by the trial court, vide its order dated 09.01.2019, operative portion whereof reads thus:-

**U;kf;d n`’VkUr la[;k ,d esa U;k;ky; }kjk ekdsZV osY;w ds fofu”p; ds fy;s dysDVj dks vknsf'kr fd;kA gLrxr izdj.k esa dySDVj dks ekdsZV osY;w djus ds fy;s vknsf'kr ugha fd;k x;kA vr% mDr rF; gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSA U;kf;d n`"VkUr la[;k 3 esa Hkh ekdsZV osY;w ds fy;s nLrkost dks bEikm.M dj dysDVj dks Hkstk x;k] gLrxr izdj.k esa ekdsZV osY;w ds fu/kkZj.k ds fy;s ugha Hkstk x;k gSA vr% mDr rF; gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSA tgkWa rd U;kf;d n`"VkUr la[;k 2 dk iz'u gS] mlesa fcuk lquokbZ ds vkns'k fn;s tkus dks mfpr ugha ekuk x;k gS] rFkk lacaf/kr i{kdkjku dks lquokbZ dk vf/kdkj gksuk ekuk x;k gSA ;g Li"V gS fd mDr vkns'k fjV ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPOp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA gLrxr U;k;ky; eqnzkad dysDVj dh vihysV vkWFkksfjVh ;k fuxjkuh vkWFkksfjVh gks] ;k ,slh dksbZ dkuwuh fof/k dks izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vxj fu;ekuqlkj eqnzkad olwy ugha fd;k x;k gS rks izfroknh fu;ekuqlkj eqnzkad dySDVj dh mPp vkWFkksfjVh ds ;gkW dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gSA vr% nskuks izkFkZuk i= lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkrs gSA**

6. Calling the order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the learned court below, Mr. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, zealously contended that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in rejecting the petitioner’s applications and so also in observing that the judgment No.2, relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable, as the same had been passed by this Court in a writ petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

8. Indisputably, the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, provides a separate remedy against determination of stamp duty, made by the Collector (Stamps), which remedy is available even against an order passed under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.

9. According to considered opinion of this Court, a remedy of revision is available to the concerned aggrieved party and he cannot seek a quashment of the order by the Civil Court, simply because the matter was referred by it.

10. The petitioner’s ambitious attempt to get the order of the Collector (Stamps) set aside by the Civil Court, is his own misunderstanding of law, which has been rightly negated by the trial court.

11. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered in Rajiv Jain Vs. The Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara[2017(1) WLC (Raj. )UC35]. A bare perusal of para No.1 of the said judgment, makes it clear that in the said writ petition, the order under challenge was passed by the Collector (Stamps), whereas in the presen