PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is claiming for the following reliefs:- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 12.2.2016 and 25.4.2016 (Annex.7 and 9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 25.4.2016 may kindly be allowed. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) Brief facts noticed by this Court are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 4. The suit was pertaining to specific performance of agreement dated 18.2.2000 and also agreement dated 16.1.2000. As per agreement dated 16.1.2000, defendant Usha sold her land to plaintiff-respondent Babu Lal. The petitioner filed an application under section 35 and 39 of the Stamp Act stating that for want of proper stamp duty the agreement inquestion cannot be allowed to be exhibited, however, the application was rejected by the learned court below on the ground that the possession has been transferred as the petitioner himself has sought police protection for taking possession over the land in-question. Counsel for the petitioner has shown agreement dated 18.2.2000, in which, para-2 reads as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Counsel for the petitioner states that since passing of possession has been recorded in the aforementioned para of the agreement dated 18.2.2000, therefore, payment of stamp-duty was mandatory.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the same agreement and has shown condition No.6, which reads as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;