The Court emphasized the power of the Authority to impound a document not properly stamped and the duty of the Court to determine the admissibility of the document based on the willingness of the party to pay the proper stamp duty or deficit stamp duty.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff challenging the order dated 09.07.2015, whereby the application filed by the respondent-defendant dated 27.05.2015 has been allowed and the present petitioner has been restrained from making the agreement to sale dated 22.11.2008 as Exhibit on the ground of not properly stamped.

2. This Court finds that initially notices were issued by this Court on 29.02.2016 and the Court below was restrained from passing the final order.

3. This Court finds that notices were issued to the respondent- defendant from time to time and the office report dated 13.10.2017 shows that notices on sole respondent-defendant were served on him on basis of the report of the process server as the respondent-defendant was present at his address but he refused to accept the notices and then notices were affixed on his house.

4. This Court finds that service was complete and when the petitioner moved an application for early disposal of the writ petition at orders stage, notices were again issued. Office report shows that the notices were again served on the respondent but he failed to appear before this Court.

5. This Court on 27.01.2022 recorded a detailed order-sheet and found that in spite of service, the respondent was avoiding appearance before this Court and in the interest of justice, notices were again issued to the respondent through his counsel, who was appearing before the Trial Court.

6. This Court, specifically observed that matter may be listed for final disposal and if the respondent did not appear or make himself available to argue the matter, the case was to be decided on the basis of record in accordance with law.

7. This Court finds that the notices were again issued to the District Judge, Alwar for effecting service upon the respondent and office report shows that the notices were sent to the respondent but till date no person has appeared.

8. The previous order-sheets of this Court on two occasions had shown sufficient service on the respondent-defendant but he has not chosen to appear and as such this Court is left with no other option except to decide the present writ petition.

9. This Court also finds that the respondent, in spite of service, does not appear before the Court, no leniency can be given to such litigant who intends to avoid the appearance in High Court and is taking things for granted.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 22.11.2008 for Rs.12,01,001/- in relation to the property mentioned in the agreement to sale, which was owned by the respondent-defendant.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-defendant had filed a written statement along-with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to dismiss the present suit for specific performance on the ground that the agreement to sale dated 22.11.2008 was not admissible in evidence, as the same was not properly stamped.

12. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid application of the defendant was dismissed by the Trial Court dated 21.11.2014 with liberty to the respondent-defendant to raise the objections at the time of petitioner's-plaintiff evidence.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the suit was fixed for petitioner-plaintiff evidence, respondent- defendant again moved an application dated 27.05.2015 to restrain the petitioner from exhibiting the agreement to sale dated 21.11.2014.

14. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed reply to the application stating therein that the document in question was properly stamped and the same was admissible in evidence.

15. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 09.07.2015 came to the conclusion that the document in question was not properly stamped and the same cannot be exhibited under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act of 1899').

16. Learned counsel for