ORDER

1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of order dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned Collector of Stamp and District Registrar, Sehore in Case No.83/B103/Section-33/2017-18 whereby photocopy of a document has been accepted for impounding.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners after reading the order dated 18.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2333/2017 (Priyanka Mishra & Another versus Dr. Nishi Naryani & Others) submits that impounding of photocopy of a document is not permissible. The law in this regard as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hariom Agrawal versus Prakash Chand Malviya (2007) 8 SCC 514 is crystal clear.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Advocate for the State support the impugned order.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, it is evident that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2333/2017 (Priyanka Mishra & Another versus Dr.Nishi Naryani & Others) has observed as under:-

''After having heard learned counsel for both the parties, in the facts of the present case, the judgment of Hariom Agrawal versus Prakash Chandra Malviya (2007) 8 SCC 514 applies, however, in my considered onion, the Trial Court committed error to allow the application. In any case if the plaintiffs want to prove the said fact after impounding of the document, they may take recourse of law to bring such document on record by filing application specifying the ingredients of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

5. It is evident that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2333/2017 (Priyanka Mishra & Another versus Dr.Nishi Naryani & Others) has held that if the plaintiffs want to prove the said fact after impounding of the document, they may take recourse of law to bring such document on record by filing an application specifying the ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Coordinate Bench did not upheld the argument raised by the petitioners therein that the photocopy could not have been taken on record and forwarded it to the competent authority for its impounding.

6. In Hariom Agrawal versus Prakash Chand Malviya (supra), the ratio is that the photocopy of original instrument could neither be validated by impounding nor it could be admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Hence, the ratio is that the impounding will not validate the photocopy of original instrument and nor it can be admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

7. In view of such facts, mere factum of impounding, which is reflected from the impugned order, is not sufficient to quash the said order but it will be open to the petitioners before the trial Court to prove that even after impounding in absence of original document, the impounding will neither validate the document nor it can be admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Since this option is still available to the petitioners and the ratio of judgment of Hariom Agrawal versus Prakash Chand Malviya (supra ) is not in regard to the impounding but in regard to the admissibility/validity and that issue being open can always be raised by the petitioners before the trial Court.

8. In above terms, this Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.

9. Let record received from the Court of the Collector of Stamp, Sehore as produced by Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the State be returned back to him in original for onward transmission.

10. At this stage, Shri Manthan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even while impounding the document, no notice was issued against the present petitioners.

11. The aforesaid fact is disputed by Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the State and he submits that