IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 304 of 2009 Decided on : July 20, 2010. Tilak Raj Sharma and others …Petitioners. Versus Pawan Kumar and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 8 Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A suit has been filed against the present petitioner by respondents 1 to 9, claiming that certain property, mentioned in the plaint, is joint of the parties. Also, there are defendants (respondents 10 to 13 in the suit) who do not deny plaintiffs’ claim. They also claim that the property is joint. 3. Present petitioners are contesting the suit. Their plea is that the suit property had fallen to their grandfather’s share in a family settlement and that memorandum of that family settlement was prepared. 4. An application was moved by defendants, who are supporting the claim of the plaintiffs, alleging that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - nature of the document (alleged family settlement) relied upon by the present petitioner (contesting defendant), be determined and stamp duty and penalty be ordered to be paid and also effect of non registration of the document be determined. That application has been partly allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to get the value of the property determined from the Collector and to pay stamp duty and penalty, equivalent to 10 times the amount of stamp duty. As regards the effect of non registration, it has been observed by trial Court that the same would be seen and determined at the time of disposal of the main suit. 5. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. According to him, the document is in the nature of family settlement and it does not require registration, nor does it require any stamp duty to be paid and that trial Court, by the impugned order, has given a finding, which is required to be given only at the time of final disposal of the suit. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that document should have been allowed to be proved, subject to the objections of the respondents- defendants, that the same was inadmissible in evidence, on account of non stamping and non registration, and the question should have been determined only at the final stage of disposal of the suit and in case at that stage, the Court found that document required stamping, then it could have passed an order for impounding of the document and - 3 - payment of stamp duty and penalty. Consequently, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and it is directed that questions raised in the application under Section 151 CPC of respondents- defendants, who are siding with the plaintiffs, shall be determined, simultaneously with the disposal of the main suit and in case the trial Court finds at that stage that document required stamping and registration, it will pass appropriate orders. July 19, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.