1 W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6475 OF 2011 Shivaji S/o Eknath More Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Golapangri, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Sanjay S/o Babanrao More Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Golapangri, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. Through his G.P.A. holder Manoj S/o Raosaheb More Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Golapangri, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 2. Lahu S/o Babanrao More Age : 21 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Golapangri, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 3. Sakhubai Sonaji Garad Age : 29 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jaibhawani Nagar, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS 2 W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ] Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Naik, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondents have filed Suit for recovery of possession. The petitioner resisted the Suit. The petitioner filed an application [ Exh. 57 ] for impounding the document which is styled as “ Watani Patra ”. The said application was moved purportedly U/s 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the said document is not registered as required U/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. I have heard Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.R.Naik, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 3. 3 W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ] 4. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that ex-facie the document which is sought to be impounded is inadmissible in evidence. The said document requires compulsory registration U/s 17 of the said Act and when the document is inadmissible in evidence, the same can not be impounded. The trial Court has rightly considered this aspect and has rightly rejected the said application. According to the learned counsel, the document which is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, can not be considered for impounding. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties, I have gone through the application and the order passed. 6. The present application is filed invoking Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The payment of stamp duty on a document is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act and the objection regarding registration is governed by the provisions of the said Act. The objection regarding insufficiency of stamp and that of lack of registration both operate in a different field. Even if the document is impounded U/s 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, even after payment of deficit stamp duty and the penalty, the defect of the non registration is not cured. The document which requires compulsory registration and is not registered, can be used for collateral purpose, but the document which is not on sufficient stamp as required under the provisions of the 4 W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ] Bombay Stamp Act and the deficit stamp duty is not paid, then the said document even can not be used for collateral purpose. Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act bars admissibility of the said document for any purpose. 7. Both the issues i.e. objection of non registration and objection of insufficient stamp are governed by different statute and they do not over lap. Even if the document is impounded for the purpose of the stamp duty, still the same would not erode on the rights of the other party and shall not negate the objection about the non registration. 8. There is nothing in the Bombay Stamp Act which prohibits or lays down any impediment for the Court to impound the document if it is on insufficient stamp and though not registered even if it requires compulsory registration U/s 17 of the said Act. 9. The perusal of the application [ Exh. 57 ] shows that it is submitted for the limited purpose to impound the same for payment of proper stamp duty and penalty. 10. In view of the above, the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the said application. 5 W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ] 11. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application [ Exh. 57 ] is allowed. 12. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/W.P. 6475.2011 - [ J ]