Sita Ram And Ors vs Rukdi

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

In a suit filed by respondent seeking cancellation of release deed dated 27.12.2012, the petitioners relied on an unstamped and unregistered sale deed.

An application was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, with the submissions that the document produced was unstamped and unregistered, therefore, it were inadmissible in evidence.

By order dated 16.11.2019 the trial court ordered for impounding the document and sent the same to the Sub-Registrar (Stamp) for determination and recovery of the deficient stamp duty.

The Sub-registrar by his determination dated 29.11.2019 indicated that in the document khasra numbers, area and the nature of land has not been indicated and, therefore, the stamp duty cannot be determined.

The petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial court, inter alia, requiring the Court to send the plaint, release deed, sale deed etc., to the Collector (Stamp) for determination of deficient stamp duty.

The trial court by its order dated 15.01.2020 rejected the application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application. The said documents were required to be sent to the Sub-Registrar for assisting him in determination of the requisite stamp duty and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

The Sub-Registrar declined to determine the deficient stamp duty by indicating that the document did not indicate the khasra number, area and the nature of land. The prayer made by the petitioners that the plaint and the documents produced with the same be sent to the Registrar for assisting him in determining the deficient stamp duty, is incredible, to say the least.

If petitioners felt that the said documents could have helped the Sub-Registrar in determining the requisite/deficient stamp duty, the petitioners themselves could have produced the said material before the Sub-Registrar, requiring the court to send its record for the purpose is inconceivable.

Consequently, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The writ petition filed by the petitioners has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.