SARDAR SATPAL SINGH Vs. SAROJ SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the order dated 08.07.2016 and 24.08.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2015. The Court below initially vide its order dated 08.07.2016 had ordered for depositing of stamp duties of Rs.28,05, 374/- as per Schedule 1 A of Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the Act). Likewise, vide its order dated 24.08.2016 the Court below has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the report of the Sub- Registrar and directed the petitioner to deposit court fees as valued by the Sub-registrar and as ordered by the Court vide its order dated 08.07.2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and also seeking possession and grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit property involved in the case is the land situated at Khasra No. 1245 and 1246 in the village Kedarpur, District Ambikapur. The suit property originally was in the name of one Jainath Shukla, the husband of defendant no.1 and the father of defendants 2 and 3. The suit property was given on rent to the father of the petitioner somewhere in the year 1962. On 04.07.1987 it is alleged that there was an agreement in respect of the sale of the said property between the original owner Jainath and the petitioner for the sale consideration of Rs.55,001/- and advance of Rs.5,000/- was paid immediately. As per the petitioner/plaintiff, periodically, he had made the entire payment to the original landlord but the landlord did not execute the sale deed which lead to the filing of the suit for specific performance.

(3.) At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed a suit seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur which got dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The first appeal and the second appeal preferred against the said judgment also got dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff of filing a suit for specific performance of contract. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Civil Suit no. 34/2015. Pending the said civil suit, the eviction petition filed by the defendants was also decided in favour of the landlord and the petitioner has been evicted from the said premises. In the civil suit, after the pleadings were complete on either side, the trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and thereafter, the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. The respondents herein who are the defendants before the civil Court raised an objection before the trial Court that the agreement to sale dated 04.07.1987 is not properly stamped. On the basis of the said objection, the plaintiff immediately moved an application on 28.04.2016 before the trial Court under Section 33 of the Stamp Act seeking for impounding of the document.