Dismissed

Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramkalya Sharma v. Basanti Lal S/O Shri Shoyosahay

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024CW/9690/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by which the Trial Court permitted an insufficiently stamped agreement to be exhibited subject to payment of deficit stamp duty, holding that such procedure prevents undue delay without creating substantive rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramkalya Sharma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37219]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9690/2024

¶4

Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramkalya Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Andhi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶5

---- Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

Basanti Lal S/o Shri Shoyosahay, Aged About 60 Years, 2. Ramrai Sharma S/o Shri Ramsahay Sharma, Aged About

¶8

50 Years,

¶9

Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramsahay Sharma, Aged About 48 Years,

¶10

All Residents Of Village Andhi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶11

Mu. Kesar W/o Ramsahay Sharma, Aged About 70 Years, 5. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, Aged About 62 Years,

¶12

Radheshayam Sharma S/o Shri Ramjilal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years,

¶13

All Residents Of Village Bhagwanpura Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur.

¶14

Kajod S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 60 Years,

¶15

Babu Lal S/o Chiranji Lal, Aged About 58 Years,

¶16

Ramswaroop S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 57 Years,

¶17

All Residents Of Village Andhi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶18

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Pancholy for Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

[2024:RJ-JP:37219]

[CW-9690/2024]

(2 of 4)

04/09/2024

Petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.231/17 (210/2009) titled as Banwari Vs. Basanti Lal & Ors. by the Court of Civil Judge, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, whereby and whereunder the agreement to sell in question dated 30.01.2009 has been allowed to be exhibited in defendants' evidence subject to payment of deficit Stamp Duty thereupon before the Collector (Stamp).

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. In this civil suit, from the side of defendants No.7, 8 and 9, an agreement dated 30.01.2009 was produced during evidence of defendants but since this agreement was found to be insufficiently stamped, therefore, vide order dated 28.09.2021 the original agreement was impounded and has been sent to the Collector (Stamp) for levying of balance stamp duty thereupon. It has been pointed out that a deficit stamp duty alongwith penalty to the tune of Rs.5,56,956/- has been determined by the Collector (Stamp) vide order dated 13.06.2022 but same has not been paid by defendants.

¶28

It appears that the present civil suit was filed way back in the year 2008 and further trial of civil suit was withheld due to pendency of the proceedings in respect of levying the balance stamp duty on the agreement in question dated 30.01.2009 by the defendants, therefore, the Trial Court, vide order dated 26.02.2024 in order to proceed with the trial of the present civil

[CW-9690/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:37219]

(3 of 4)

suit, has allowed to exhibit the copy of agreement dated 30.01.2009, subject to deposition of the deficit Stamp Duty by the defendants on the original agreement. The order dated 26.02.2024 has been challenged by the plaintiff by way of filing instant writ petition.

¶33

This Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court has clearly observed in the order impugned that mere marking of exhibit on the copy of agreement dated 30.01.2009 will not create any right in favour of either of the party nor the document would be admissible in evidence and such marking of exhibit shall remain subject to making payment of deficit stamp duty on the original agreement before the Collector (Stamp). The Trial Court has observed that the proceedings of the civil suit can not be allowed to withhold for a longer period only on this count, therefore, such modus operandi has been adopted by the Trial Court in order to proceed further with the trial of civil suit.

¶34

This Court finds that the procedure followed by the Trial Court is perfectly in consonance with the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and Anr [(2001) 4 SCC 197].

¶35

In the impugned order dated 26.02.2024, it has been clearly observed that the exhibit of the agreement in question is subject to deposition of the deficit Stamp Duty and marking of the same shall not create any equity or additional right in favour of the Defendants.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:37219]

[CW-9690/2024]

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as such the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶41

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶42

TN/58

Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramkalya Sharma v. Basanti Lal S/O Shri Shoyosahay

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramkalya Sharma v. Basanti Lal S/O Shri Shoyosahay

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Malghani S/O Vasudev Malghani Vs Smt. Asha Jain W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain

Girdhar Prasad Joshi Vs Indian Oil Corp Ltd. and Ors.

Infinity Fitness Center Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Son of Late Shri Radheyshyam Vs Jitendra Son of Babulal

Surendra @ Sundar S/O Shri Tunda Vs State of Rajasthan

Roop Singh S/O. Shri Revatilal Vs Nagarpalika Hindaun