u Dishict Durg. 15. Jhaduram, son of Budhram Sahu 16. Manohar, son of Manglumm Satnamj, Respondents No. 15 as 16 are msident of Urla, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG). 17. Tikamchand Rathi, son of Amritlal Rathi, Resident of Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sha:ma, J.) PreSent:— Shri GS. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri UR. Koshlay, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondent NO. 11. Shri MK. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent NO. 14 (As a cavator). ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 15/07/2010) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian petitioners has prayed for quas'hment of the order dated 14/ 6/ 20 10. in the present petition notice has not been issued to the respondents at the stage of admission, Leaxned counsel for the petitioners submits that matter may be disposed of at the stage of motion without hearing to the other parties. Order impugned dated 14/6/2010 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Kumd District Dhamtari in civil suit NO. 10-A/06 whereby learned Court below has dismissed the application for impounding of one document settled as a partition deed or memorandum of partition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has filed the document settled as partition agreement dated 18/3/78 same is without stamp and before using the same in a evidence plaintiffs are required to impound the same in terms- of Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 but Court below has dismissed the petition for impounding the same, 5. Shri MK. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent NO. 14 (As a cavator) vehemently opposed the petition and Submite that as per case of the plaintiffs document alleged of the partition deed which is compulsory reg'sterabie therefore plaintiffs cannot be permitted to impound the same. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State/respondent NO. 11 opposed the petition. Order impugned perused. Virtually the dispute relating to impounding of the document filed before the Court is a dispute between the parties who has filed the document and State. Every unstamp or insufficient stamp document produced before the Court is required to impounding in terms of Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by paying the necessary charges including penalty to the State by impounding-the document parties are not automatically entitle to really the document. The Court before the document was filed was under obligation to clear that such document should be impounded but in stead of admitting the plaintiffs/petitioners or directing the plaintiffs/petitioners for impounding the document Court below has dismissed the petition for impounding such document. Court below has patently committed an illegality not sustainable under the law. For the foregoing reasons hearing of the opposite party is not necessary in the present case. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside, Alleged document filed by the petitioners shall be impounded after payment of necessary charges as per rules. No order as to costs. ar sly— 12?.Sharma judge ~