JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. Since the present writ petitions arise from a common suit, both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this Common Judgment.

2. The writ petition bearing No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15604/2025 has been filed assailing the order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Kotputli-Behror) in Civil Suit No.15/2019, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs–petitioners seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003, which was only available as a photocopy, has been rejected.

3. The writ petition bearing No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17903/2025 has been filed assailing the order dated 26.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Kotputli-Behror) in Civil Suit No.15/2019, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs–petitioners under Sections 35 and 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1998’) for impounding the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003 and for sending the same for payment of appropriate stamp duty has been dismissed.

4. The controversy arises from the fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs–petitioners for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003. The plaintiffs were neither in possession of the original document nor any certified copy thereof, and only had a photocopy of the said document. Accordingly, the petitioners initially filed an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application, holding that the plaintiffs were seeking to lead secondary evidence on a document which was insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiffs–petitioners challenged the order dated 11.02.2025 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15604/2025.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 35 read with Section 37 of the Act of 1998, seeking a direction that the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003 be impounded and sent to the competent authority for the purpose of payment of appropriate stamp duty, so as to render it admissible under the provisions of the Act of 1998. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that a photocopy, in the absence of the original document, cannot be impounded. Consequently, the application was rejected vide order dated 26.08.2025, which is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17903/2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, making submissions in both the writ petitions, contends that the petitioners ought to be permitted to lead secondary evidence of the document, as the original is not in their possession. It was submitted that the original document is with the Electricity Department. It was further submitted that the existence of the document has been sufficiently established, and therefore, the petitioners should be allowed to adduce the photocopy in secondary evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the existence of the document has been established, the photocopy thereof can also be impounded and sent to the competent authority for the purpose of payment of requisite stamp duty, so as to render it admissible under the provisions of the Act of 1998. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders dated 11.02.2025 and 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court be quashed and set aside, and that the agreement to sell dated 12.03.2003 be permitted to be impounded and sent to the competent authority for payment of stamp duty. Upon such payment, the petitioners may be permitted to lead the said document in secondary evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments:

(i) Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Information Commissioner Greater Mumbai & Ors.  2019 (14)