1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 824/2009 (Chetan Dinkarrao Padole & anr. Vs. Smt. Rina wd/o Diliprao Padole & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 16 , 2009 . Heard Shri Malode for the petitioners, and Shri Rude for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Warud, on 1/12/2008, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for passing suitable orders for impounding and registration of the partition deed dated 10/6/1985. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order dated 1/12/2008. The petitioners/defendants had relied on partition deed dated 10/6/1985 and desired the Court to pass directions for impounding and registration of the said document. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that the registration of the document was not possible as one of the parties to the document, was no more. According to the Court, the document ought to have been registered and for permitting the impounding of a document which ought to have been registered, the other provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 were applicable. The Court rightly held that the document could not have been impounded and the application was liable to be rejected. 2 The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Court was duty bound to grant the application so far as the relief of impounding of the document was concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 and that the Court could not have rejected the application, is liable to be rejected as the Court could not have been first asked the document to be impounded and thereafter decided about its admissibility and whether it required registration. The other provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 deal with the question of adjudication as to proper stamps and the stages at which the adjudication is to be done in case of a document which is required to be registered. In the instant case, since the document requires registration, the Court held that the said document could not have been permitted to be impunded in the absence of registration. The order dated 1/12/2008 does not suffer from any error much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP