- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") whereby the trial Court has directed to send the document in question to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of proper stamp duty. In the instant case, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent No.1-defendant seeking recovery of Rs.5 lacs with interest on the basis of agreement dated 9.12.2004 allegedly executed between the parties. The execution of the said agreement has been denied by the respondent-defendant in his written statement. It further appears that the trial Court, after framing the issues from the pleadings of the parties, proceeded further with the trial of the suit. The petitioner-plaintiff filed his affidavit and also the affidavit of PW.2 in support of his case. The trial Court thereafter fixed the matter for cross-examination of the said witnesses by the respondent-defendant. It further appears that during the course of filing of said affidavits by the petitioner-plaintiff and PW.2, the agreement in question was sought to be exhibited as Exhibit-1. The respondent-defendant, therefore, submitted an application raising objection with regard to the admissibility of the said agreement, to be read in evidence, by contending inter alia that the said agreement was required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act and the same having not been registered, was not admissible in evidence. The trial Court after hearing learned counsels for the parties on the said application of the respondent-defendant, vide order dated 21.9.2011 observed that the said agreement dated 9.12.2004 was not admissible in evidence as it was not sufficiently stamped in view of Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, and was required to be sent to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the proper stamp duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. K. Joshi for the petitioner that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit only for recovery of money and not for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.12.2004 and, therefore, the said agreement was to be used only for collateral purpose, which was permissible in evidence in view of the Proviso to Sub-section 49 of Registration Act. He also submitted that the respondent-defendant in his application has not raised any objection as regards the insufficiency of the stamp duty, and the trial Court has suo moto sought to impound the said document and referred it to the Collector (Stamps) which is not proper. Mr. N. K. Joshi also submitted that even otherwise the said agreement would fall under Clause (c), which require the stamp duty of Rs.100/- only to be paid and, therefore, the agreement in question was duly stamped and there was no requirement of sending it to the Collector (Stamps).;