Bhim Singh vs Sheo Pal and Another

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Petitioner filed suit No. 229 of 1.7.2013 for specific performance of contract (agreement to sell) dated 7.1.2006 against the respondents, herein. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the respondent No. 2 for impounding the original agreement to sell (supra), because of being insufficiently stamped, as, thereunder, the possession of the suit property was, allegedly, delivered to the petitioner, at the time of its execution. It was further averred in the application that in the case of agreement to sell being coupled with delivery of possession of the property, an executant is bound to pay the prevailing stamp duty. A direction was sought to be issued to the petitioner (plaintiff) to pay deficient stamp duty along with 10 times penalty. This application was opposed by the petitioner and, after hearing both the sides, the trial Court, vide order dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P-1), allowed the prayer of the respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner, herein, to pay deficient stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 2,99,950/-.

This petition shall be decided without issuing notice to the respondents, who, if aggrieved by this order, may move appropriate petition for recall of this order. The issuance of notice of motion of this petition to the respondents shall cause further delay in the disposal of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) would reveal that it has nowhere been held by the trial Court, as to what was the adequate and sufficient stamp duty, that was payable on the disputed agreement to sell. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside on this short ground, with direction to the trial Court to decide the application of the respondent No. 2 afresh, by coming to a definite conclusion, as to what should have been the value of the stamp duty payable, whereon, disputed agreement to sell could be lawfully executed and only, then, the amount of penalty could be knowable.

In the absence of such finding, as to what should have been the value of the stamp paper for the purpose of execution of the agreement to sell between the petitioner and respondents, it is very difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the impugned penalty has been correctly assessed or not. Resultantly, the civil revision succeeds and is, hereby, allowed; impugned order dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) is set aside with direction to the trial Court to decide the application of the respondent No. 2 afresh regarding impounding of the disputed agreement to sell, in terms indicated (supra).