CR No.1696 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1696 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:24.02.2011. M/s Amar Teletronics (P) Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Ravinder Arora ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. SKS Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 10.12.2009 by which it had kept the objection of the petitioner with regard to deficiency in stamp duty on the document Ex.P3 to be decided at the final state. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in normal circumstance it can be done so, but where the objection raised is with regard to the deficiency in stamp duty, the Court has to decide it first before proceeding further. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158, in which it has been held as under: - “13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage CR No.1696 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.” On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the document was tendered along with affidavit in terms of Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short “CPC”] and as per proviso to Order 18 Rule 4(1) of CPC, the proof and admissibility of the documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. He further submits that the order of the Court in this regard is yet to be passed as the objection has not been rejected so far and is kept to be decided at the final stage of the case. However, simultaneously it is also argued that he would make the deficiency in the stamp duty good within one month from today after paying penalties, if any imposed, and that would finally overcome the objection which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case (supra) is concerned, it is very much clear that objection relating to deficiency in stamp duty has to be decided first by the Court before proceeding further and for all other objections, the procedure suggested by learned counsel for the respondent that it can be decided at the final stage can be followed, but as the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he would make deficiency in the stamp duty good within one month from today by paying penalties etc., whichever may be imposed, this satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such the present revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. February 24, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE