Hargovind Singh & Another vs Pratibha Chandra

Lok Pal Singh, J

Civil revision is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019, passed by Judge, SCC/2nd Addl. District Judge, Haldwani in SCC Suit No. 8 of 2018

Pratibha vs. Hargovind Singh and anr., whereby an application moved by the revisionists herein under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C. has been rejected.

Brief facts, of the case, are that plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a rent agreement, which is an unregistered document, allegedly executed between

revisionists and respondent w.e.f. 01.07.1996 for a period of 48 months @ Rs. 350/- per month. An application was moved by the revisionists under

Order 13 Rule 8 of C.P.C. since rent deed dated 01.07.1996, which Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, for impounding the said document in view of

Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2019 rejected the said application on the ground that the mandate under

Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act which calls for an impounding for a document, cannot be sought for to be invoked by a litigant in a proceedings

before an Adjudicatory body, exercising power under a Special Act, and that too particularly when he is the signatory of the said document too, as the

Adjudicatory body has to only consider as to what would be the implications with regard to the said document which has been sought to be impounded

whether it could be read into evidence or not.

For kind reference Section 33 (1) of Indian Stamp Act is extracted hereunder:-

“33. Examination and impounding of instruments.â€

(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of

police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears

to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.â€​

Besides provisions contained under section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, it would be apt to extract provisions contained under Section 47 of the

Indian Stamp Act. Same is extracted hereunder:-

Power of payer to stamp bills and promissory notes received by him unstamped.â€"When any bill of exchange 77 [or promissory note] chargeable

23 [with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise] is presented for payment unstamped, the person to whom it is so presented, may affix thereto the

necessary adhesive stamp, and, upon cancelling the same in manner hereinbefore provided, may pay the sum payable upon such bill 79 [or note], and

may charge the duty against the person who ought to have paid the same, or deduct it from the sum payable as aforesaid, and such bill or note shall, so

far as respects the duty, be deemed good and valid:

Provided that nothing herein contained shall relieve any person from any penalty or proceeding to which he may be liable in relation to such bill or

note.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial court has rejected the application, filed by the revisionist, for impounding the rent deed

dated 01.07.1996, which was executed for a period of 48 months on the ground that rent agreement is required registration under Section 17 of the

Indian Registration. However, the document has not been registered but has been filed on the record of the Trial Court. The reason recorded by the

Trial Court that Trial Court being Adjudicatory body, has only to consider the admissibility of evidence is not sustainable. Admissibility of a document

is to be considered when execution of the document is proved by cogent evident, but, when it is brought to the notice of the court that an instrument

which is not duly stamped has been filed on record then it was the duty of the Trial Court to send the document for its impounding to the Collector

concerned. Firstly, the Trial Court has committed illegality in non-sending the document to the Collector concerned to impound the same; secondly the

Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by the revisionist praying therein that alleged rent deed be sent to the Collector

concerned for its impounding.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if this court is of the view that the alleged rent deed should

have been send to the Collector Nainital so the Collector Nainital may impound the same, thus, in such circumstances the Court may please to set

aside the impugned order.

In view of the findings recorded above and the statement made by Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order

dated 15.04.2019 is hereby set aside. Civil revision is allowed. The Trial Court is hereby directed to send the original rent deed dated 01.07.1996 to the

Collector, Nainital, so he may impound the document. The Collector, Nainital on receipt of the document shall impound and charge insufficient stamp

duty from the respondent. The entire exercise be completed by the Collector, Nainital within four weeks from the date of receipt of the document.

No order as to costs.