SHOBHARANI Vs. CHANDRA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -plaintiff has filed this writ petition to challenge impugned orders dated 24th February, 2014 (Annex. P/5) and 9th April, 2014 (Annex. P/7) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Court below') in a suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) BY order Annex. P/5, the learned Court below has opined in clear and unequivocal terms that the basis of suit, i.e., agreement to sale dated 3rd of October, 1972, is in the nature of conveyance, and being insufficiently stamped, the same is not admissible in evidence. Thereafter, while resorting to Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, 'Act of 1998') the learned Court below impounded the document and directed petitioner -plaintiff to produce certified copy of the document with the order before the Collector (Stamps) within 15 days. It is also clarified that no further time shall be granted to the petitioner in this behalf, and posted the matter for evidence of the petitioner -plaintiff. Subsequent to that order, petitioner submitted an application by invoking sub -section (1) of Section 37of the Act of 1998 showing his readiness and willingness to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon and for prayed for impounding the document by the Court instead of sending it to the Collector (Stamps). After hearing the rival parties, by order Annex. P/7, the learned Court below declined the prayer of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, submits that the learned Court below has committed grave and serious jurisdictional error in not exercising powers under sub -section (1) of Section 37 of the Act of 1998, therefore, both the impugned orders are not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has failed to exercise powers under sub -section (1) of Section 37 of the Act of 1998 which it ought to have exercised in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bhawana & Ors. V/s. Chandmal [2015 AIR CC 1237 (Raj.)]. The Court, while harmoniously construing Sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Act of 1998, dilated on the powers to be exercised by the Court if it is noticed that document tendered in evidence is insufficiently stamped. The Court held: