IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 806 of 2005 (M/S) 1. Pramod Khanna S/o Late Om Prakash Khanna, Resident of 11 E Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 2. Rachit Rastogi Son of Sri Alok Rastogi Resident of 6/c- Sainik Farm, M.B. Road, New Delhi. ……Petitioners. Versus Jang Bahadur Shahi son of Sri Guman Singh, Resident of Village Kishanpur, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun. ………Respondent. Mr. Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D. Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent. Date:- 10th December 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8-7-2005 passed by Additional District Judge/ FTC-II, Dehradun in O.S. No. 128 of 2004, Pramod Khanna Vs. Jang Bahadur of the Government by which direct sale deed will not be read in evidence. By means of the Paper No. 79 C, the petitioners have moved an application to this effect that the sale deed which is lying before the Additional District Magistrate/Upper Collector bearing Stamp Case No. 1/03- 2 04 may be summoned in evidence to prove the sale deed in accordance with law. It reveals from the order that ex parte order dated 21-07-2003 has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Dehradun and against the order dated 21-07-2003, the petitioners have preferred a revision before the Chief Revenue Commissioner. The learned Additional District Judge /2nd FTC, Dehradun has allowed the application subject to the condition that the sale deed be summoned but the sale seed can be read in evidence after deficit stamp duty is paid by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew attention of the Court to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. As per section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. The question whether the document is duly stamped or not is to be decided by the revisional court i.e. Commissioner Chief Controlling Authority under the Stamp Act For the reasons and discussion above I find that the learned court has not committed any error in passing such order as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The 3 impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court on 29-07-2005 stands vacated. The Registry is directed to sent the lower court record back to the trial court concerned. (B.S. Verma, J.) 10-12-2009 MK