HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1926/2022

Dron Pareek S/o Shri Pramod Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, Resident

Of Plot No. 6, Manu Vihar, Near Keshav Vidhyapeeth, Jamdoli, Kanota,

District Jaipur (Raj.)

---Petitioner

Versus

Yogendra Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Krishan Gopal Joshi, Aged About 67

Years, Resident Of Plot No. A-32/2, Flat No. 404, Sukh Samraddhi

Apartment, Tilak Nagar Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (East).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Keshav Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sudhir Jain, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

09/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant

challenging the order dated 28.09.2021 whereby, the application filed

by the petitioner under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998

(hereinafter read as ‘the Act of 1998’) read with Section 17 of the

Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter read as ‘the Act of 1908’),

has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-

plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50 lacs against the petitioner-

defendant stating therein that he agreed to purchase three plots from

the defendant in the residential scheme and the plaintiff had paid Rs.45

lacs to the present petitioner-defendant and out of the said amount

Rs.30 lacs were paid in cash and remaining Rs.15 lacs were paid

through cheque.

(2 of 6)

[CW-1926/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document

dated 05.05.2016 was executed for this purpose in which it was

specifically mentioned that allotment and possession of three plots was

to be handed over upto 31.05.2016, failing which money was to be

refunded.

Learned counsel submitted that after receipt of summons of the

suit, the petitioner-defendant filed written statement and denied any

transaction being made of the alleged plots between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document

dated 05.05.2016 was not admitted to be executed by the petitioner-

defendant and the said document was alleged to be forged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after framing of

the issues, the petitioner filed application under Section 37 of the Act of

1998 read with Section 17 of the Act of 1908, wherein, it was brought

to the notice of the Court below that the basis of the suit was document

dated 05.05.2016, on the basis of which issue No.2 was also framed. It

was brought to the notice of the Court that the document dated

05.05.2016 was required to be executed on proper stamp and

registration was also necessary and since the document was neither

registered nor properly stamped, as such it was not admissible in

evidence and the same was required to be impounded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below

vide impugned order dated 28.09.2021 has observed that the document

dated 05.05.2016 is not required to be registered as well as stamped.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has not

kept in mind Serial No.5 of the Schedule of the Rajasthan Stamp Act,

1998, whereby any instrument, relating to purchase or sale of

immovable property, requires payment of 3% stamp duty.

(3 of 6)

[CW-1926/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bare perusal of

the document dated 05.05.2016, filed with the writ petition, clearly

provides that the sale consideration of three plots in question was for

Rs.45 lacs, out of which Rs.30 lacs were paid in cash and remaining

payment of Rs.15 lacs was given by way of cheque for the purpose of

handing over possession by one Radha Residency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said

document also specifically provided that if the possession and allotment

was not given in the prescribed time, the entire amount was required to

be refunded.

Learned counsel submitted that as