Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Partha Pratim Mahato & Ors vs Sri Debdip De & Anr on 21 February, 2022
21.02.2022
(S/L-27)
Ct.-18
(Susanta)
(Via Video Conference)
C.O. 2672 of 2019
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 9219 of 2019)
Sri Partha Pratim Mahato & ors.
-Vs-
Sri Debdip De & anr.
Mr. Srinjoy Das,
Ms. Adrija Chatterjee,
Mr. Kiran Ray,
Ms. Sanjukta Mukherjee,
.... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Amitava Mukherjee,
Ms. Arpita Saha,
Ms. Ankita Ghosh,
... For the Opposite Parties.
The revisional application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is at the instance of
the defendants in a suit for specific performance
of an agreement for sale and is directed against
order no. 59 dated July 19, 2019 passed by the
Additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Purulia in the said suit being Title Suit
No. 183 of 2016.
The agreement for sale was insufficiently
stamped, as such, when sought to be tendered in
evidence, the learned Trial Judge impounded the
same and sent it to the concerned Collector for
assessment of stamp duty payable on it.
The Collector returned his assessment to the
Trial Court. The petitioners prayed imposition of
ten times penalty on the said assessment of the
Collector.
The learned Trial Judge vide order no. 53
dated July 16, 2018 allowed the said prayer of
the petitioners thereby modified the said
assessment of the Collector.
The opposite parties challenged the said
order in C.O. No. 3910 of 2018.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the
judgment and order dated April 24, 2019 allowed
the said revisional application with the following
direction:
"C.O. No. 3910 of 2018 is allowed
on contest, thereby setting aside
the impugned order and directing
the petitioners to deposit /pay the
actual stamp duty of
Rs.50,47,000/- along with
registration fees of Rs.7,93,089/-,
as directed by the trial court vide
Order No. 41 dated August 29,
2017, within three weeks from
date in the court below. "
The opposite parties having failed to make
the aforesaid deposits within the time fixed by
the aforesaid order prayed for extension of time.
The learned Trial Judge by the order
impugned has not only permitted the opposite
parties to deposit the said amount but also
directed registration of the said agreement for
sale.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the
direction for registration of the said document.
The learned Trial Judge while passing the
said direction for registration of the said
document has recorded "as directed by the
Hon'ble High Court".
On perusal, it appears that there was no
such direction for registration of the said
document in the order passed by the Co-
Ordinate Bench in the said revisional application.
Besides, direction for registration of the said
document on payment of the assessed stamp
duty and registration fees is de hors the provision
of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899,
therefore, not sustainable.
The portion of the order directing
registration of the said agreement for sale is set
aside. The order impugned is modified to the
aforesaid extent only without interfering with the
other portions of it.
C.O.2672 of 2019 is disposed of with the
above terms without any order as to costs.
The connected application, being I.A. No.
CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 9219 of 2019) is also
disposed of accordingly.
It is made clear that the opposite parties are
not entitled to withdraw the money already
deposited in terms of the order impugned with
the registering authority without the leave of the
Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
subject to compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
