Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) & Judl. Magistrate, Vijay Nagar, District, Ajmer, whereby it dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under S. 20 of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had filed 'Vakalatnama' (Annexure -7) before the trial Court without any Court fee and therefore, it was not admissible in evidence.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that under S. 20 of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, every Vakalatnama is required to be filled properly and duly stamped with welfare fee etc. and therefore, in the light of the same, this could not have been admitted in evidence for lack of proper stamps on it as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act. Accordingly, the trial Court has committed an error in admitting and holding it otherwise. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the writ petition and also perused the order impugned, I am of the view, that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application. It would be appropriate here to quote S. 20 of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987; 1. Every member of fund shall affix one Welfare Fund fee stamp referred to in Sub -section (1) of Section 19 on every vakalatnama filed by him and no vakalatnama shall be filed before or received by any Court, Tribunal or other authority or person referred to in Section 16 unless it is so stamped. 2. The value of the stamp shall neither be the cost in the case nor be received or collected in any event from the client. 3. In case a member of the Fund receives or collects the value of stamp from his client, he shall be deemed to be guilty of misconduct and the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act No. 25 of 1961) shall mutatis mutandis apply against such member of the Fund.
(3.) IT is apparent from the perusal of the above Section that in case, vakalatnama is presented/filed before any Court or Tribunal or any other authority then it should be properly stamped as required under the Act. However, this vakalatnama was kept in the office of the learned counsel for the respondents for issue of notice at that particular point of time. However, in the present case, as per the record, it has only been filed as an evidence that the notice was served under the authority to substantiate and nothing more. Therefore, I am of the view, that only on the ground that proper stamps were not affixed on the vakalatnama, will not make any difference.;