SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
Raman Wadhwa - Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh And Others - Respondents
CR-5769-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate With Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate

Only original documents can be validated under the Indian Stamp Act; photocopies are inadmissible for legal purposes, reinforcing established principles regarding document admissibility.

Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33 and 35 - Admissibility of photocopy of document - Only an original document can be validated under the Stamp Act; photocopies are inadmissible for impounding. The court addressed the inconsistency in rulings regarding the validation of a photocopy of an agreement for specific performance. (Paras 4, 7, 9).

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Rules on secondary evidence - Courts must adhere to established principles regarding the admissibility of documents; inconsistent rulings undermine judicial coherence. (Paras 6, 7).

(C) Jurisdictional Errors - Exercising authority not vested in the court constitutes material illegality; the decision to validate a photocopy contradicts prior legal principles regarding document admissibility. (Paras 4, 7, 9).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the validation of a photocopy of a sell agreement by the lower court, claiming it violated established legal principles regarding the Stamp Act and secondary evidence. The original document was not produced, leading to a conflict in legal opinions.

Findings of Court:
The court found the lower court's order to validate the photocopy was legally unsustainable, as only originals can be validated under the Stamp Act. The conflicting orders created material illegality.

Issues: The main issues included whether a photocopy could be validated under the Stamp Act and the implications of inconsistent judicial rulings regarding document admissibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that only original documents may be validated for stamping, rendering the photocopy inadmissible; the lower court's ruling was struck down for exercising jurisdiction beyond its mandate.

Result: Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. jurisdictional issues concerning validity of photocopies (Para 1 , 2)
2. impoundment relates only to original instruments (Para 5 , 6)
3. judicial reasoning on secondary evidence admissibility (Para 7 , 8)
4. final adjudication of the core issue (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. In view of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 30764 of 2025, whereby the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by this Court in the instant petition has been set aside and the matter has been remitted with a direction to re- hear the civil revision afresh within two weeks from today and the same be decided in accordance with law.

2. On 26.08.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-

“1. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran vide which photocopy of the agreement to sell was ordered to be not impounded, but deficient stamp duty and penalty was ordered to be paid.

2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that as per provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 only an original document can be validated and photocopy of the document cannot be validated.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order minutely.

4. After perusal of impugned order relevant extract of para No.6 of the same are reproduced as under:-

“6. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession of suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dt. 05.03.2018 allegedly executed by deceased Roshan Singh predecessor in interest of the defendants who are contesting the present suit being legal heirs of deceased Roshan Singh. The contesting defendants have denied execution of agreement to sell dt. 05.03 2018 by deceased Roshan Singh and when the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs, the present application has been moved by them seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty, whereas on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the contesting defendant has vehemently argued that alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has not been produced on file by the plaintiffs and one page of the same is missing and the plaintiffs have sought permission from this Court to prove the same by way of secondary evidence by moving application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was allowed by be then Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023 and as the original document has not been produced on file, the present application cannot be allowed as the copy of stamp paper has been produced in the Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.4910 of 2023, decided on 29.11.2023 has specifically held that if a document at is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped then the position of law well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced. No doubt, in the present case the original stamp paper has not been produced before the Court but the facts of the abovesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are not applicable to the present case as in the present case the question before this Court is not as to whether the insufficiently stamped agreement can be allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence as the said issue has already been decided by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023, rather the present application has been moved by the plaintiffs seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty on the stamp papers on which the alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has been written. No doubt, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in abovesaid judgment has held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act forbids the letting of secondary evidence in proof of its contents. The Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top