Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Raman Wadhwa – Appellant
Versus
Satnam Singh – Respondent
| 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 p
Only original documents can be validated under the Indian Stamp Act; photocopies are inadmissible for legal purposes, reinforcing established principles regarding document admissibility.
Only original documents can be validated under the Indian Stamp Act; photocopies cannot be validated or impounded, irrespective of secondary evidence provisions.
Secondary evidence of agreements not duly stamped cannot be admitted in court unless the original instrument is produced and corrected as per legal requirements.
A photocopy of a document is inadmissible as secondary evidence if the original document is not duly stamped, per the Indian Stamp Act.
There is no error in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 33(5) read with Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. That he did. However, i....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
