[2026:RJ-JP:1616]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 483/2026 Arvind Kumar Sharma, Son Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Kr 264 Civil Lines, Kota ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus

1. Mahendra, Son Of Late Laxminarayan, 2. Pappu, Son Of Ramnarayan, Both are residents Of Village Nayakheda, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

3. Manbhar, Daughter Of Late Ramnarayan, Wife Of Gopalji Mali, Resident Of Khai Road Nayapura, Kota.

4. Pappudi, Daughter Of Late Ramnarayan, Wife’s Name Unknown, Through Pappu Son Of Late Ramnarayan, Village Nayakheda, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

5. Sugna, Daughter Of Late Ramnarayan, Wife’s Name Unknown, Resident Of Khadiya, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota.

Dinesh Singh Solanki, son of Shri Babulal Solanki, House No.52 Rajshree property Ki Gali, Gopal Vihar, Kota Prahlad Singh @ Jawahar, son of Shri Natthi Singh, R/o Jaswant Nagar Bharatpur ----Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr Sumer Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

15/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 03.07.2025 and 12.12.2025, whereby the application filed by the respondents under Sections 35, 37 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 was decided and the document in question was impounded and forwarded to the concerned Authorities for proper stamping.

2. This Court finds that it is a settled principle of law that whenever a document is produced before a Court, or it comes to the notice of the Court that a document placed on record is not duly stamped, it is the duty of the Court to impound the document and send the same to the Competent Authority for proper stamping. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs P. Laxmi Devi; (2008) 4 SCC 720 held that it is incumbent upon the Court to impound the document unstamped or insufficiently stamped and observed as under:

"16. A perusal of the said provision shows that when a document is produced (or comes in the performance of his functions) before a person who is authorized to receive evidence and a person who is in charge of a public office (except a police officer) before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, it is the duty of such person before whom the said instrument is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. The use of the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) shows that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. In our opinion, the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) does not mean 'may' but means `shall'. In other words, it is mandatory to impound a document produced before him or which comes before him in the performance of his functions. Hence the view taken by the High Court that the document can be returned if the party does not want to get it stamped is not correct."

3. The said view was reiterated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar and Ors.; 2020(3) RLW 2574 (Raj.) wherein the Court observed and held as under:

"37. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, the third question whether on production of unstamped document, the Court is duty bound to determine the stamp fee along with penalty, as per Section 35(1) of the Act or to impound the same under Section 33 of the Act and send the same to the Collector for determination of stamp duty and penalty in order to make the document admissible, is answered in the terms that if any instrument is presented before the Court, which is not duly stamped or insufficiently stamped, the Court is duty bound to impound the same and; (i) if the party who produces such instrument in evidence is willing to pay the stamp duty or deficit stamp duty together with amount of penalty, to determine the same and upon deposit of the amount, so determined, with the Cou