Partly allowed

Laxminarayan Sahu v. Chandra Devi

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2019CW/1960/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the petitioner to file an affidavit along with the unstamped agreement and directed the Collector to determine stamp duty within fifteen days if the agreement is produced by a specified date, effectively granting relief from the order requiring a fresh affidavit without the document.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file affidavit with agreement; Collector directed to determine stamp duty within 15 days if agreement produced by 05.08.2019.

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chandra Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1960/2019

¶4

Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Chotu Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chandra Devi W/o Ratan Lal Chordia,

¶8

Gaurav S/o Ratan Lal Chordia,

¶9

Chetan S/o Ratan Lal Chordia, All above are R/o Village Binol, Tehsil & District Rajsamand. Second Address Vadiya Estate, MN Road, Bel Bazar, Sonapur Lane, Kurla West, Mumbai.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia For Respondent(s) : -

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

26/07/2019

¶15

Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.07.2018, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred as “the Trial Court”), whereby the defendants’ application dated 29.01.2018 filed under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 has been allowed and the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was ordered to file a fresh affidavit while removing contentious agreement to sell dated 23.11.2005.

¶16

Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, at this juncture, he does not challenge the order of

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-1960/2019]

¶19

the Trial Court, so far as it requires the petitioner to produce the agreement dated 23.11.2005, after getting it duly stamped. However, his basic grievance is that, if he files the affidavit while removing the annexure number of the agreement, he will not be able to rely upon and lead evidence on the basis of such document.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that the next date before the Trial Court is 02.09.2019 before which, he would get the stamp duty determined by the Collector, Rajsamand and produce the same before the Trial Court. If the order impugned as passed is maintained and the petitioner is required to file the affidavit in evidence without making the agreement as Annexure., then his right to lead evidence based upon the agreement would be impaired.

¶21

The concern shown and prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine.

¶22

Needless to mention that merely because a party has marked Exhibit on the affidavit, the same, per se, does not become admissible in evidence, as objection of admissibility of a document is required to be raised and determined, when the parties (or the Court), as a matter of fact, marks Exhibit on such documents or the same is tendered in evidence, when the concerned witness appears for evidence/cross-examination.

¶23

In a bid to avoid unwarranted complication, the petitioner is permitted to file his affidavit by 02.09.2019 alongwith the document dated 23.11.2005. The petitioner shall be required to produce original and duly stamped agreement dated 23.11.2005, on which the Exhibit shall be marked.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-1960/2019]

¶26

With the indulgence aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

The Stay Petition No. 1903/2019 also stands disposed of.

¶28

Mr. Kawadia prays that looking to the time constraint, the Collector (Stamp) may be directed to determine the stamp duty payable on the document dated 23.11.2005 within 15 days’ period.

¶29

Considering the fact that the petitioner is required to produce duly stamped agreement dated 23.11.2005 before the Trial Court on or before 02.09.2019, the concerned Collector (Stamp) is directed to determine the stamp duty payable on the instrument within a period of fifteen days of production thereof, in case the petitioner produces the original agreement dated 23.11.2019 on or before 05.08.2019.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶31

4-Ramesh/-

Laxminarayan Sahu v. Chandra Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarayan Sahu v. Chandra Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Smt. Basant Prabha W/O Shri Shanti Lal Ji Vs Kanna Ji Dangi

Santosh Vs Legal Representatives of Late Smt. Maya Devi

Naresh Kumar Vs Leela Devi @ Leelawanti

Mahendra Singh Vs Kailash

The Coordinator, PTET-2017 Mds Uni., Vs Manju Sankhi and Ors.

Vimla Devi Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited