- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 12.3.2010 by which the trial court rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 151 C.P.C.The trial court specifically observed that the plaintiff is not seeking relief based on the document in question and the document has been admitted in evidence for collateral purpose only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stamp duty was not properly paid and, therefore, without payment of stamp duty, the document could not have been admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. It appears from the impugned order that the deed was executed on stamp of Rs.20/- and it was duly notarised by the notary public at Mumbai and he also affixed a stamp of Rs.25/- as required under the law.
(2.) The petitioner could not show that the stamp duty paid at Mumbai was deficit and also failed to show that there is a deficit stamp duty chargeable at Rajasthan. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(3.) The petitioner since has not raised the grounds, therefore, if law permits, he will be permitted to file a review application before the court below.;