Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai Vitthalbhai Dawada vs Heirs Of Decd Valjibhai Nanjibhai on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26273 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LALJIBHAI VITTHALBHAI DAWADA & ORS.
Versus
HEIRS OF DECD VALJIBHAI NANJIBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYEN B RAWAL(1630) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Satyen B. Rawal for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present writ application is taken up for final hearing.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
3. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
4. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"(a) Be pleased to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13-09-2022 passed by the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Chotila in Regular Civil Suit No. 05/2000 Annx. A/2
(b) Further be pleased to allow this petition by granting the reliefs as prayed for in application Ex. 209 filed in Regular Civil Suit No 05/2000 pending before the ld. Principal Civil Judge, Chotila.
(c) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No 05/2000 pending before the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Chotila, till the final decision of this petition.
(d) Be pleased to allow this petition by appropriately molding the relief and / or any other relief which may be deemed fit in view of the very peculiar facts of the present case
(e) Be pleased to pass any other and further order which may deem fit in view of peculiar facts of the present case
(f) Be pleased to kindly dispense with the joining all the defendants in the cause-title of writ petition"
5. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE THAT:
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined 5.1. The present application is filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Chotila below Exhibit - 209 in Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2000, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the impugned application filed by the petitioners herein.
5.2. By way of impugned application, the request made by the petitioners before the Trial Court that pursuant to the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit-116 in the aforesaid suit, they were directed to submit original documents i.e. mark 23/24 and 51/1 for necessary action under the Stamp Act. The said order was also confirmed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.02.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.7646 of 2011.
5.3. So, petitioners have submitted the aforesaid two documents in original and thereafter, vide impugned application dated 11.02.2020 requested the Trial Court to send it to the Stamp Duty Inspector / Collector for necessary action. 5.4. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court has rejected the impugned application on the ground that the original documents are submitted after long delay, then it is not required to send it to Collector.
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Satyen B. Rawal for the petitioners would submit that once there is reasoned order passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit-116, whereby it directed the petitioners to submit aforesaid original documents and having submitted the same, due to insufficiency of stamp, not exhibited, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to send it to Stamp Duty Inspector / Collector as per Section 31 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act').
6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal would further submit that the impugned application is erroneously rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the same is filed after period of 9 years from the passing of the order below Exhibit-116. It is submitted that order below Exhibit-116 was subject to challenge before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.7646 of 2011 and after rejection of such writ application, on 03.12.2019 petitioners have submitted original documents which ought to have been referred to the Stamp Duty Inspector-Collector. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal would submit that there is no direction issued either by Trial Court or this Court that Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined within stipulated time, aforesaid documents, in original, requires to be submitted.
6.4. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal would further submit that once those documents now come on record and having found that due to its not duly stamped as per the provisions of the Stamp Act, it was duty of the Trial Court to impound such document and send it to the Stamp Duty Inspector / Collector for necessary action in accordance with law. 6.5. Making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rawal would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
7. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
7.1. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the respondents would submit that there is no error, much less any gross error, committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application. It is submitted that no interference of this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India requires in the matter. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli would submit that order below Exhibit-116 was passed by the Trial Court way Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined back in 2011 and same was confirmed by this Court in the year 2012, whereas, for no reason, petitioners sat tight over the issue and presented the original documents only on 03.12.2019 and just to delay the adjudication of the suit, impugned application came to be filed, on 11.02.2020.
7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli would further submit that the Trial Court has correctly observed that due to insufficiency of stamp, those documents could not have been exhibited and question of its sending to the Revenue Inspector / Collector would not arise at all. It is submitted that action of petitioners is to delay the trial of suit proceedings, such an attempt should not be encouraged by the Court, whereby correctly rejected the impugned application. 7.4. Making the aforesaid submissions, he would request this Court to reject the present writ application.
8. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. No other and further submissions being made.
9. Following facts emerged from the record are not in dispute. 9.1. At given point of time, the documents in question produced at mark 23/24 and 51/1 respectively were not given Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined exhibits due to its non-registration and/or not duly stamped as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908/ the Stamp Act.
9.2. The request to exhibit those documents was refused by the Trial Court vide its order dated 29.03.2011 passed below Exhibit-116 in the aforesaid suit.
9.3. While passing such order, in operative portion, in para- 2, its observed as under:
"(2) It is hereby order to the defendant (no 1 to 3) to produce the original document (Viz M 23/24 & 51/1) before the court for necessary action under stamp act."
9.4. The aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court was subject to challenge by the petitioners before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.7646 of 2011, which was rejected by oral judgment and order dated 22.02.2012 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
9.5. It appears that pursuant to the direction issued by the Trial Court vide its order dated 29.03.2011 passed below Exhibit-116, petitioners herein have submitted one of its original document produced at mark 205/1 on 03.12.2019. Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined 9.6. So, by way of impugned application dated 11.02.2020 filed below Exhibit-209, petitioners have requested the Trial Court to refer the aforesaid original document produce at mark 205/1 to Stamp Duty Inspector / Collector for appropriate action in accordance with law.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, when petitioners have acted pursuant to the direction issued by the Trial Court, as referred hereinabove, it was duty cast upon the Trial Court to impound the documents produced in original which is not duly stamped as per the Stamp Act.
11. The question of delay in submitting impugned application pales into insignificance, inasmuch as, there is no time limit prescribed by the Trial Court in its order passed below Exhibit- 116, as referred hereinabove, in submitting the original documents.
12. At this stage, it would be apt to quote provisions of the Stamp Act, which is relevant to resolve the controversy germane in the matter:
"Section 33 - Examination and impounding of instruments:- Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined (1) Subject to the provision of section 32A, every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine very instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required be the law for the time being in force in the State when such instrument was executed or first executed:
Provided that-
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898);
(b) in the case of a Judge of High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court may appoint in this behalf.
(3) For the purpose of this section, in cases of doubt,-
(a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and
(b) the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices.
Section 34 - Instruments not duly stamped in admissible in evidence etc No instrument chargeable with duty [90][not being an instrument referred to in sub-section (1) of section 32A),] shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped :
Provided that-
(a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty naye paise and less shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or in the case of any instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;
(b) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;
(c) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.
Section 37 - Instruments impounded how dealt with (1) When the person impounding as instrument under section 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by section 34 or of duty as provided by section 36, he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the collector, or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector."
The bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that when an instrument which is not duly stamped, thereby cannot allow to receive in evidence but having presented before the Court, at first instance, the Court requires to impound such document/instrument, then after, it requires to send it to the Collector for its necessary action in regards to the levy of the stamp duty and penalty, if any, in respect of such impounded document.
13. Having so observed and in fact, due to aforesaid provision Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined of law, when the Court at the first instance passed an order below Exhibit-116, whereby directed the petitioners to submit original documents for necessary action under the Stamp Act, it was duty of the Court to impound the documents once presented. Thereafter, as per the aforesaid provisions of the Stamp Act, it requires to refer it to the Stamp Duty Inspector i.e. Collector. Once such legal obligation not discharged by the Trial Court especially when not acted pursuant to its own order passed below Exhibit 116, thereby, committed gross irregularity while rejecting the impugned application.
14. According to my view, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned applications are not only erroneous, perverse but contrary to aforesaid provisions of law and cannot allow to sustain in law.
15. In light of the aforesaid observations, discussions, and reasons, the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed below Exhibit-209 by the Principal Civil Judge, Chotila in Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, impugned application filed below Exhibit-209 in the aforesaid suit is hereby allowed, whereby the Trial Court is hereby directed to send the original document i.e. mark 205/1 to Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/26273/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined concerned Stamp Duty Inspector / Collector for necessary action in accordance with law by the Collector.
16. Once such document will be received by the Collector concerned, after conducting proper inquiry and if so required, affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, an appropriate order be passed by the Collector concerned in regards to payment of deficient stamp duty and penalty thereon if any by concern party. When such stamp duty/penalty etc. be paid by party concerned, Collector requires to send back the document in question to Trial Court. On receipt of the document duly stamped, an appropriate order be passed by Trial Court in regards to its exhibit in accordance with law, albeit after affording any opportunity to all parties concerned.
17. In view of the forgoing conclusion, the present writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:14:33 IST 2025