SANTOSH ANANT RAUT Vs. PUKHARAJ CHOGMAL RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,19,000/- together with interest thereon. An application was made at Exhibit-45 by the respondent contending that the documents produced along with the list at Exhibit-3 have been proved by the respondent and therefore, the same may be marked as exhibits. Thereafter, an application was made by the respondent at Exhibit-46. In the said application it is contended that the respondent is relying upon a letter in which the petitioner has allegedly acknowledged the debt in the sum of Rs. 6,19,000/-. In the application, the respondent himself stated that the said document amounts to "acknowledgment" and it is insufficiently stamped in the sense that instead of executing the document on a stamp of Rs. 50/- the same has been executed on a stamp paper of denomination of Rs. 20/-. A reference was made to the provisions to section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondent showed willingness to pay penalty as well as deficit stamp duty. By the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2008, the said document which was marked as Exhibit-50 was impounded and the respondent was directed to pay stamp duty of Rs. 90/- inclusive of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even according to the case of the respondent the document was insufficiently stamped and therefore, the same ought not to have exhibited. He submitted that in any case, Civil Court does not possess any power to decide the issue regarding correct stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable on document in accordance with the said Act. He submitted that if such document was impounded and thereafter read in evidence, it will result into allowing vexatious suit filed by the respondent at premature stage.

(3.) When a document is sought to be tendered in evidence before the Court, if it is found that the document/instrument is not sufficiently stamped, it is the duty of the Court to impound the said document in accordance with section 33 of the said Act. In view of section 34 of the said Act, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence. Proviso makes it clear that if the deficit stamp duty is paid and if penalty as provided therein is paid, the document can be admitted in evidence. Under the said Act, no power is conferred on the Court to determine the stamp duty chargeable in respect of any instrument. In view of sections 31 and 32 of the said Act, the said power is vested in the Collector. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is confined to recording a finding on the question whether an instrument is duly stamped. The Civil Court cannot determine the stamp duty payable on a particular instrument.