Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 2, 2011 M/s Chaudhri Ghasitoo Ram and Sons .....Petitioner v. Niranjan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11437-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 20.11.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short `the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short `the Code') for impounding alleged receipt dated 16.6.2006 was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for recovery of `28,000/- alongwith interest was filed by respondent-plaintiff against petitioner on the basis of document, Annexure P2. The same is unstamped. Plea was taken by present petitioner that the same be impounded under Section 35 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code as the same amounts to receipt, which required fixation of stamp Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011(O&M) -2- of `1/- at least. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent-plaintiff as well it has been stated that though the document is not a receipt, as alleged by present petitioner-defendant, however, if it is held that the same is a receipt, then he is ready to pay the requisite stamp duty alongwith the penalty, as assessed by the Court. It is relevant to reproduce Sections 2(23) and 35 of the Act, which reads as under:- “2(23)“Receipt” includes any note, memorandum or writing- (a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received, or (b) whereby any other movable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or (c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person;” “35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence,etc. –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: Provided that–– (a) any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion ; Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011(O&M) -3- (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it; (c) Where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; (5 of 1898) (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.” A perusal of the document, Annexure P2, shows that the same is acknowledgment of the amount allegedly received by the present petitioner, hence, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the same comes within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Act, which requires a stamp of `1/- as per Article 53, Schedule I of the Act. However, proviso to Section 35 of the Act provides that instruments chargeable with duty shall be admissible in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable alongwith a penalty as assessed by the Court. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to treat the disputed document, Annexure P2, as a receipt and to assess the requisite stamp duty and penalty payable by the respondent-plaintiff under proviso to Section 35 of the Act and opportunity be given to respondent-plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty and on being Civil Revision No.2875 of 2011(O&M) -4- done so, the same be admitted in evidence. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 2.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge