The court upheld the reasonableness of the petitioners' application for impounding the document under the Stamps Act, considering the circumstances of criminal proceedings and examination by FSL.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are heard and disposed of finally.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13749/2015:

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh Camp Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.28/2007 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under section 35 of the Stamps Act for impounding the document in question was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document in question is dated 15.01.1999 and for specific performance of the same, a suit was preferred in the year 2007.

4. Since, the document was not properly stamped, vide order dated 13.04.2012, the petitioners were directed to get the document properly stamped by impounding the same through the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the process could not be undertaken by him on account of the fact that on the criminal proceedings being initiated, the document in question was sent for examination to FSL and therefore, the petitioners were unable to comply with the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the trial court. There was no intention on the part of the petitioners who are legal heirs of the plaintiff to delay the suit proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel submits that after passing of the order dated 13.04.2012 by the trial court, the petitioners had sufficient time to comply with the order of impounding the document through the competent authority but just to delay the proceedings, the process was not undertaken and therefore, learned trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 35 of the Stamps Act vide its order dated 23.09.2015.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the order dated 23.09.2015. The fact that order dated 13.04.2012 was passed by the trial court for getting the document in question impounded but on account of the fact that some criminal proceedings were initiated, admittedly the document was sent for FSL and the same was not available to the petitioners, therefore, the requisite stamp duty could not be paid for impounding the same. Thus, filing of an application by the petitioners for getting the document impounded by paying appropriate stamp duty appears to be reasonable.

7. In view of above discussion, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh camp Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar is quashed and the application preferred by the petitioners for getting the document impounded is allowed. The trial court is directed to return the document dated 15.01.1999/ 25.01.1999 to the petitioners for getting the same impounded and resubmitting the same to the trial court. Such exercise of getting the document impounded shall be completed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all the pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13701/2015 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh Camp Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.28/2007 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of CPC for taking on record the water slips issued by the irrigation department was rejected.

9. Heard Learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the water slips were not within the knowledge of the petitioners, therefore, the same could not be produced before the trial court at the time of filing the suit.

11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial court rightly rejected the application of the