1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order passed in Case No.7-A/13 on 30.4.2014, whereby the application of petitioners-defendant No.2 preferred under sections 33,35 and 38 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is rejected by the Court below.

2. Shri P.C.Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, the document Annexure P-3, i.e., ‘agreement for sale’ was filed. The petitioner preferred an application under sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure P-4) and prayed that in the agreement of sale, the sale consideration is Rs.8 crores. The stamp duty on the said amount would be Rs.8 lacs, whereas the plaintiffs have paid only Rs.100/- and, therefore, by invoking section 33(1) and 35 of the Stamp Act, the said document be impounded and send to Collector of Stamp for proper adjudication.

3. The plaintiffs filed their reply Annexure P-5 and contended that the application is not tenable. Regarding the nature of agreement, the averments of written statement needs to be seen. They have relied on 2008(II) MPWN 105=2008(2) MPLJ 416 (Laxminarayan and others v. Omprakash and others), in their reply. Shri P.C.Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs have relied on an overruled judgment in their reply (Annexure P-5). This judgment is expressly overruled by Division Bench in the case reported in 2010(III) MPWN 101=2010(2) MPLJ 140 (Man Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives Smt. Sumranbai and others v. Rameshwar and another).

4. Criticizing the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the Court below has given contradictory findings. In the first breath it is mentioned that the document Annexure P-3 infact is not an agreement for sale, whereas in the concluding paragraph the finding is given that it is an agreement for sale. By drawing attention of this Court on Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act [entry (e) (ii)], it is contended that this entry shall be applicable and, therefore, 1% of total consideration of the property set-forth in agreement or memorandum of agreement shall be the stamp duty. By taking assistance from clause 5(d), it is contended that a minute reading of agreement for sale shows that it also falls within the ambit of clause (d) aforesaid. Reverting back to section (6) of the Stamp Act, it is urged that if one document is covered in two entries, then the stamp duty which is higher should be payable. Thus, he submits that 2% of the stamp duty is payable on the document in question. In support of his contention, he relied on AIR 2008 SC 1640 (Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi).

5. Per contra, Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that for ascertaining nature of document only contents of the documents are to be seen and no assistance can be drawn from the pleadings of written statement. He submits that a careful reading of the document would show that it is not an ‘agreement for sale’ between the plaintiffs and the respondents. He submits that the findings of Court below is that it is not ‘agreement for sale’ between the parties, on the contrary it is an agreement of distribution of the sale proceeds which are over and above eight crores. He submits that since the plaintiffs and respondents are not purchasers and sellers, by no stretch of imagination, this document Annexure P-3 can be said to be an ‘agreement for sale’. He submits that the document Annexure P-3 is covered under entry (g) of clause 5 of Schedule 1A. He submits that the Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is warranted in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. He relied on AIR 1969 SC 1238 (Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. M/s. Dilip Construction Co.).

6. No other points are pressed by the parties.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for th