Trial Court must adhere to statutory procedures under the Indian Stamp Act regarding document admissibility and impounding instruments for insufficient stamp duty.

ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This petition and M.P. 3776/2024 are being decided together, as both are interrelated to each other.

2. Both the petitions were filed by petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders dated 22/05/2024 and 05/07/2024 passed by the 15 District Judge, Gwalior in civil suit No 400001A/2015 (RCSA).

3. Brief facts of the case is that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 30/05/2014 against respondents/defendants with pleading that on 30/05/2014, respondent No.1 entered into agreement to sale with petitioners for sale of his land which is in question for consideration of Rs. 3,15,000/- per Bigha, as the land in question is agricultural land, therefore, respondent No.2/State Government was arrayed proforma defendant in the suit. Copy of plaint is Annexure P-2 and agreement to sale is Annexure P-3. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement. Thereafter, Trial Court framed the issues and fixed the matter for evidence of plaintiffs on 22/05/2024. During chief examination of petitioners/plaintiffs, defendant No.1 raised the objection that document agreement to sale is not properly stamped, therefore, the same can not be exhibited in evidence. But Trial Court without taking any decision on the objection raised by respondent No.1/defendant passed the order to call the report from the Collector of Stamp about the stamp duty payable on the agreement to sale. Thereafter, on 05/07/2024 Trial Court after receiving the report from Stamp Collector, directed petitioners/plaintiffs to pay deficit stamp duty Rs. 9,97,850/- with ten times penalty and get impound the document from the Collector of Stamp.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Trial Court dated 22/05/2024 and 05/07/2024, petitioners/ plaintiffs filed these petitions on the ground that impugned orders passed by the Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, therefore, the same deserve to be set-aside. It is submitted that from perusal of impugned orders, it reveal that during chief examination of petitioner No.1/plaintiff, objection raised by defendant No.1/respondent No.1 about admissibility of document agreement to sale on the ground of deficit stamp duty but Trial Court without deciding the objection and without giving any finding of deficit of stamp duty has directed to call the report from the Collector of Stamp about the stamp duty payable. It is further submitted that according to Section 33 of the Indian STAMP ACT , it is a duty of Trial Court to take opinion that instrument is not duly stamped impound and thereafter, Trial Court should follow Sections 38 and 40 of the Indian STAMP ACT but Trial Court did not follow the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned orders be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-defendants supported the impugned orders and submitted that when Trial Court found that sale deed was not properly stamped, therefore, he called the report from Stamp Collector and thereafter, petitioners/plaintiffs were directed to pay the deficit court fee. Therefore no interference is warranted in the impugned orders and impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents attached with this petition.

7. It is found that at the stage of petitioners/plaintiffs' chief examination, respondents/defendants raised objection about the admissibility of documents and agreement to sale on the ground of deficit court fee. Thereafter, Trial Court directed to call the report from Stamp C