1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 15949/2010 ......... Petitioner Shri Kishan Gour, Plaintiff S/o Shri Halkeram Gour, aged about 34 years, Caste Kurmi, R/o Village Muchail, Tehsil & District Raisen, M.P. Versus ........ Respondents 1. Akram Ali, Defendants S/o Asad Ali, Aged about 40 years, R/o Chopra Mohalla, Raisen,Tehsil & District Raisen (M.P.) 2. Smt. Rani, W/o Akram Ali, aged about 35 years, R/o Chopra Mohalla, Raisen,Tehsil & District Raisen (M.P.) 3. State of M.P. through Collector, Raisen, M.P. 4. Badri Prasad, S/o Kriparam aged about 41 years, R/o Village Muchail, Tehsil & District Raisen. ................................................................................................ Petitioner - Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate. Respondents - None though served. ................................................................................................ 2 O R D E R (09/03/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P/8) passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 33 of the Indian Stamps Act to impound a document and send it to Collector (Stamps) for realization of duty penalty and deficit stamp duty, has been rejected. 2. The suit of the plaintiff is for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement dated 5.4.06 executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that defendants submitted an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC praying to frame an additional issue in respect of admissibility of the document. The said application was rejected and it was observed by the learned Trial Court that the factum of admissibility of the document shall be considered at the time of recording the evidence. Learned counsel submits that since the entire suit of the plaintiff is based on the agreement of sale and because the document 3 is not properly stamped, therefore, certainly it will not be exhibited by the learned Trial Court and since it is inadmissible in the evidence, the result would be that the suit of plaintiff would be failed and hence he submitted an application under Section 33 of the Stamps Act which has been illegally rejected. 3. Considered the arguments. 4. Since the application under Section 33 of the Stamp Act has been filed by the plaintiff himself praying to impound a document and send it to Collector (Stamps) for realization of deficit stamp duty and duty penalty in accordance with law, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court acted illegally in rejecting the application, because the entire suit of the plaintiff is based on the document of agreement of sale which should be on proper stamp duty and certainly if the document will put in evidence it will not be exhibited and read in evidence being inadmissible. 5. Hence, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 33 of the Stamp Act is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P/8) is set aside. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to handover the original document 4 of agreement of sale to the plaintiff so as to enable him to submit it before the Collector (Stamps) for realization of deficit stamp duty and duty penalty. The plaintiff is further directed that on receiving the said document, he shall submit it to the Collector (Stamps) and after passing necessary orders by the Collector (Stamps), by affixing deficit stamp duty, the said document will be again filed in the Civil Court so that it may be send in evidence after it is exhibited. Till this exercise is done, further proceedings in the Trial Court shall remain stayed 6. This petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 5 W.P. No. 15949/10 09.03.2011 Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. He is heard. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 3. Shri Ram Prasad Sahu, 6 aged about 24 years, S/o Late Shri Gaya Prasad Gupta, R/o 105, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 4. Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Gaya Prasad Gupta, R/o 107, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 5. Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Shri S.N. Pandey, R/o 109, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 6. Shri Hukum Chand Grover, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Shri Aayaram Grover,R/o 111(Old 433), Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 7. Smt. Surat Kumari Vaidya, aged about 70 years, W/o Shri R.S. Vaidya, R/o 114, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 8. Shri Kishorilal Jaiswal, aged about 84 years, S/o Late Mansuklal Jaiswal, R/o 120, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 9. Shri Ravi Kant Tamrakar aged about 45 years, 7 S/o Late Shri K.L.Tamrakar, R/o 121, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 10. Smt. Kanti Tiwari, aged about 70 years, W/o Late Shri B.P.Tiwari, R/o 128, Ranital-Garha Road, Kamla Nehru Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.)