C.R. No.6998 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6998 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.09.2009 Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited .....Petitioner Versus Mrs. Shashi Kapoor and others ...Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against an order passed by the Executing Court directing the impounding of a rent deed produced by the judgment debtor for the purpose of collecting stamp duty penalty. The objection raised by the tenant-judgment debtor was that the document could be relied for a collateral purpose and the Registration Act provided under Section 49, the reliance on the document on any of the grounds mentioned under the said Section. 2. The Executing Court assessed that the lease deed providing for a lease for a term of 3 years had not been written on adequate stamp papers and the actual amount duty payable was to be determined by the Collector. He referred to Section 33 of the Stamp Act which cast a duty on the Court to impound the document for realizing the deficient amount. 3. It is one thing to state that a document which is required in law to be registered could be used for a collateral purpose, which is spelt out C.R. No.6998 of 2008 (O&M) -2- under Section 49 but quite another to say that a document which is required to be written on stamp papers of appropriate value stipulated under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act was not properly stamped and in which case the document itself cannot be used in evidence of any transaction under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The objection regarding the insufficiency of stamp could be made only at the time when the document is tendered in evidence, for, Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act would prevent any person from objecting to the insufficiency of stamp if a document is received without objections. While Section 49 would enable a person to rely on an unregistered document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act from being used as evidence of a collateral transaction, Section 35 interdicts the reception of a document in evidence for any purpose if it is insufficiently stamped. This distinction is significant for an unregistered document, which may be received for a collateral purpose would become unavailable even for such collateral purpose if it is insufficiently stamped and an objection is at the trial. The duty of the Court to impound a document and collect stamp duty are set out in Sections 29 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The order directing the impounding of the instrument was perfectly justified and the civil revision is wholly without merits. 4. The civil revision is dismissed affirming the order passed by the Executing Court. The interim stay which has been granted stands vacated. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 07, 2009 Pankaj*