HI$H COURT OF CHHATTISGAW AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.227) N0.3297 of 2011 (Writ Petition under Atticle 227 of the Constitution of India) Mr.P.P.Sahu, counsei for the petitioners. Mr.Manoj Paranjape, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2IState. . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitaion of indie the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 28.3.2011 (Annexure Pi1) passed by 12‘“ oivn Judge mass-n, Raipur in Civil Suit No.222—A/2008,~ rejecting the objection/application of the petitioners/defendants‘for marking as exhibit mark‘and proving the documents without impounding the same. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents tiled on behalf of the petitioners. . Leamed, counsel for the petitioners submits that before marking the document as exhibit and proving the same the alleged agreement (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) ORDER (ORAL) (1 6e-2o1 1 ) Petitioners ‘ 1. Baldev Sonkar, aged about58 years, Defendants S/o late Gangaram Sonkar, . 2. Khubchand Sonkar, aged about 46 years, Slo late Gangaram Sonkar’,‘ Both are Rlo Sonkar Para, Near,.;. Shriram Mandir, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus . Respondents 1. Bharatlai $onkar, aged about 40 Plaintiff years. Slo Shri Firuram Sonkar,‘R/o Satti Chabutra, Sonkar Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh. Through: the Collector, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) LX# whereby aner recelvmg full conSIderatmn possession has been handed » -7 over to opposne party, document was required to be stamped In. v accordance wuth Artlcie 23 of Appendix B of the Indian Stamp Act; 1899 but objechon of the petitioners has been denied and Ehe Coutt. below has permitted to mark the document as exhlblt subject to final t decISIon of oblectton of the petitioners 4. As per Article 23 of Appendix B of the lndran Stamp Act 1899 the aforesaid stamp dmy was requured In the document and the Court was under obligation to consrder the objection/application of the petthoners; In the light of aforesaid legal provrsmns before accepting the same ln‘ V k eVldence but by passrng such order and permlttlng respondent ’ No 1/plalntlff to adduce the document In evrdence the Court below has commltted Illegallty 5. Consequently, the wnt petition Is allowed Order Impugned relating to such permissron ls hereby quashed Court below shall pass the order In accordance wrth Artlcle 23 of Appendlx B and Section 49 of the lndlan Stamp Act 1899 before accepting and permitting for exhibit mark In the document No order as to costs Sd/- T.P. Sharma r Judge