[2025:RJ-JP:50788]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1447/2017

1. Jitendra Nath Sachhar S/o Sri Sai Dass Sachhar, Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar Rajasthan Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs

2. Nirmala Kumari W/o Shri Jitendra Nath Sachhar, Swaran Kutti, Behind Surya Mandir, Jhalarapatan

3. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Jitendra Nath Sachhar, Jitendra Collection, Behind Surya Mandir, Jhalarapatan

4. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Jitendra Nath Sachhar, New Swaran General Store, Opposite Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank, Jhalarapatan

5. Smt. Anita D/o Shri Jitendra Nath Sachhar, W/o Shri Murari Lal Adalakha, Advocate, Khedliganj, Atru, District Baran Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Yodhraj S/o Shri Sai Dass Sachhar, Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Pareek Mr. N.K. Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

16/12/2025

1. The matter comes up on an application No.1/2025, for early listing, the same is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17.12.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, in Civil Suit No. 58/2005, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff–respondent under Section 35 of the Stamp Act read with Section 49(c) of the Registration Act was rejected. The learned trial court further directed that the document in question may be proved by the defendant petitioner at the stage of his evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent–plaintiff had filed an application under Section 35 of the Stamp Act read with Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, contending that the document on record was neither sufficiently stamped nor registered. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in response to the said application, the petitioner had filed a reply stating therein that, if permissible under law, the document may be impounded and sent to the Collector (Stamps) for the purpose of payment of the requisite stamp duty. He further submits that the learned Trial Court committed an illegality in not impounding the document and in not sending the same to the Collector (Stamps) for payment of the appropriate stamp duty.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he had indeed filed the application but supports the impugned order dated 17.12.2016. However, learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the fact that, once he himself had raised an objection regarding the insufficiency of stamp duty on the document and the petitioner was also willing, as stated in his reply, that the document be sent to the Collector (Stamps) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, then how the order dated

17.12.2016 could be upheld.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, in Civil Suit No. 58/2005.

6. Consequently, the application filed by the respondent is restored to its original position. The learned Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application afresh in light of the provisions of the Stamp Act. If, upon such consideration, the learned Trial Court finds that the document is not sufficiently stamped, it shall follow the procedure prescribed under law for impounding the document.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J Shruti/48