- (1.) The petitioner/defendant (for short 'the petitioner'), in the instant writ application, has projected a challenge to the order dated 10th April, 2013 passed on an application dated 30th March, 2013 wherein the respondent/plaintiff (for short 'the respondent') prayed for withdrawal of the 'agreement for sale' from Part-'D' of the record, and sought permission to mark the same as 'exhibit', in view of the fact of having deposited the deficient stamp duty along with ten times penalty thereon. The learned Trial Court granted the application vide impugned order. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application are : that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an unregistered agreement dated 24th October, 2003. On an objection raised by the petitioner in view of Section 35 and 36 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1998', for short), made an order dated 6th December, 2005 directing the respondent to make good the deficiency within 20 days along with the ten times penalty and in default thereof, the document would be impounded and sent to the Collector (Stamps). Aggrieved of the order dated 6th December, 2005, the respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 10134 of 2005 (M/s. Gaurav Private Limited v. Harlal Choudhary), which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 23rd December, 2011 along with the stay application. The order on the writ application dated 23rd December, 2011 was further challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Number CC-21019-21020/2012, which was also dismissed on 21st January, 2013. The respondent thereafter filed an application on 30th March, 2013 detailing out the facts with reference to the remedies available under the law, and availed of, by the respondent. The petitioner did not file any reply to the application. However, after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court allowed the application vide impugned order dated 10th April, 2013.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 10th April, 2013 on the ground that the respondent having failed to comply with the directions issued vide order dated 6th December, 2005 by the learned Trial Court, to make good the deficiency within twenty days, was precluded from getting the document marked as an 'exhibit'. Further, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 8th August, 2012, declined the application of the respondent for not impounding the document i.e., agreement for sale dated 24th October, 2003, as per the mandate of Section 44 of the Act of 1998; while determining the deficient stamp duty and ten times penalty itself, to be deposited within twenty days. It is further urged that neither this Court nor the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land granted any permission to the respondent to deposit the deficient amount on account of stamp duty and at the same time, no time extension was allowed to make good the deficiency. Therefore, the learned Trial Court committed serious error and illegality while granting the permission to mark the document as an 'exhibit' and thus, exceeded the jurisdiction. Referring to Rule 50 and 51 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, it is further urged that once the document was declared irrelevant or inadmissible, the same cannot be exhibited. The order is also assailed in the light of the mandate of Section 39 of the Act of 1998 as well as in view of Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC).
(3.) To reinforce the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhai Maligai Partnership Firm & Ann v. K. Santhakumaran & Ors., 1998 7 SCC 386; and Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda & Ors., 1997 6 SCC 78; and emphasized that since the matter has been concluded even by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, in view of dismissal of the SLP, it was not open for the learned Trial Court to reconsider the issue, which is against the judicial discipline and the impugned order also suffers with jurisdictional error.;