1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40. WP/7207/2009 (DNYANOBA BAJIRAO JADHAV V/S NARAYAN BABURAO REDDY) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Patil, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Gunale, Adv., for respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/10/2010 1. Heard. 2. In a suit for specific performance of contract, the defendant raised a plea that he has already entered into sale of the same property by another agreement in favour of Vithal Rajaram Dudhbhate. He has requested, by application dt. 16.6.2009 to refer the agreement of sale in original to the Collector of Stamps, Latur, for impounding. The learned Judge did not agree to the same and rejected the application (Exh.76). Thereafter, another exercise was 2 made by the defendant by application Exh.81 seeking permission to allow him to deposit Rs.35,934/- pursuant to order below Exh.72 concerning his agreement of sale dt.23.5.2007. The same was rejected by the learned Judge by order dt. 18.9.2009. Learned Judge, by subsequent order dt.29.8.2009, forfeited the right of the defendant and closed his evidence when he was under cross examination. 3. The analytical study of the relevant provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, in unmistakable terms illustrate the powers in terms of Section 33 to impound the document. In view of Sections 31 and 32 of the said Act, the said power is vested in Collector. This is in tune with the scheme as authorities possess expertise to value the indenture, including levying penalty. Inspite of this position, the Superintendent of the Court carried over, and the defendant rightly moved 3 application to refer the document to the Collector of Stamps. The exercise by the defendant was certainly in tune with the provisions of Stamp Act. This has been even so indicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7509/2009 dated April 1, 2010. (Santosh Anant Raut Vs. Pukhraj Chogmal Rathod). 4. Learned Judge erred in passing the above referred orders, subject of challenge. The effect of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of Stamp Act need not be obliterated. Consequently, same requires interference. 5. The penalty which the defendant has offered by application needs to be entertained / allowed and, thereafter, the learned Judge shall also allow the defendants to place his evidence to be subjected to cross examination by recalling the order dt.29.8.2009. 6. It was canvassed by Mr.Patil 4 that the defendant is more keen in protracting the matter. However, since care can be taken by a time frame disposal, the grievance would be addressed. 7. As the defendant has brought the proceedings to this Court, the defendant shall pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff. Costs to be deposited before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in Special Civil Suit No.30/2007, upto 29th Oct.,2010 and the learned Judge shall disburse the same in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Considering the nature of the controversy between the parties, the learned Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit upto 30th April, 2011. Writ Petition allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/7207-09wp