Chattisgarh High Court
Brijmohan Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs.- ... vs Brajbhushan Pradhan on 21 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18025
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1045 of 2018
1 - Brijmohan Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs.- Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late
Shri Brijmohan Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Danipara, Raigarh ,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-10-
2024)
2 - Smt. Bulbul Agrawal W/o Shri Badal Prakash Jindal Aged About 44
Years R/o N.H. No. 6 Main Road, Pushpkunj, Bargarh, Odisha. (As Per
Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-10-2024)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Brajbhushan Pradhan Somanth Pradhan R/o Delsara, Tahsil Sitapur,
District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
For respondent : None appears though served
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
21.04.2025
1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Additional
District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.B-300/2010 dated
15.10.2018 whereby, the application moved by the plaintiff under
Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the
Stamp Act') was disposed of and it was observed that the
admissibility of the document i.e. rent agreement would be
adjudicated at the time of the final hearing of the suit.
2. Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the rent agreement was
entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 30.04.2009.
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,19,472/-.
He would further submit that the tractor and hydraulic tractor-trolley
were taken on rent by the plaintiff from the defendant and in this
regard, a rent agreement was executed between the parties and a
security amount of Rs.3,70,000/- was given to the defendant and
thus, that document was necessary for adjudication of the lis
between the parties. He would contend that the rent agreement
was not properly stamped but it was produced before the learned
Trial Court therefore, an application was moved for impounding the
document. He would further contend that the learned Trial Court
partly allowed the application and the document was taken on
record but with regard to the proper stamp duty, no steps were
taken. He would also contend that according to the provisions of
Section 38 of the Act, the concerned Court was required to refer
the document to the Collector Stamp to assess the amount of
stamp duty. He would pray for a direction to the learned concerned
Court to refer the document i.e. rent agreement to the Collector
Stamp for assessment of the proper stamp duty. He would refer to
para 17 of the judgment passed in the matter of Shyamlal and
another Vs. Rambai and others, WP (227) No.810 of 2017
decided on 22.03.2025.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at
length and perused the documents placed on the record.
4. In the matter of Shyamlal (supra), while dealing with the
provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act the following was held in
para 17:-
"17) In the matter of Umesh Kumar Prakashchandra
Sharma v. Rajaram Ramchandra Jat and another
reported in AIR 2010 MP 158, the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh while dealing with Section 33 of the Stamp Act
held that when the document is produced before the
Court, and the Court impounds the same,the Collector
(Stamp) would have no jurisdiction to impound the
document under Section 33 of the Stamp Act but the
Collector will have to receive the document from a Court
then proceed in accordance with law. Once the matter is
referred to the Collector under Section 38(2) of the
Stamp Act, then he has to decide whether the said
instrument is duly stamped or not. Once he decides that
the document is duly stamped, then he shall certify by
the endorsement thereon that the document is duly
stamped or that it is not so chargeable with the stamp
duty. However, if the Collector comes to the conclusion
that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not
duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper
duty or amount required to make up the same, together
with a penalty of five rupees."
5. According to the provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the
Court after impounding the document is required to refer the
document to the Collector according to the provisions of Section
38(2) of the Stamp Act to decide the issue as to whether the
document is duly stamped or not. Once the Collector decides that
the document is duly stamped then he shall certify it by the
endorsement thereon that the document is duly stamped or that it
is not so chargeable with the stamp duty. If the Collector comes to
the conclusion that such an instrument is chargeable with duty and
is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper
duty or amount required to make up the same, together with a
penalty.
6. It appears that in the present case, the learned Trial Court after
impounding the document failed to take steps according to Section
38(2) of the Stamp Act and further decided to adjudicate the matter
with regard to the admissibility of the document at the final stage
which appears to be erroneous and contrary to the provisions of
Sections 33 and 38 of the Stamp Act.
7. In the light of the above-discussed facts and law, the present
petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Court to
refer the document i.e. the rent agreement to the concerned
Collector (Stamp) according to the provisions of Section 38(2) of
the Stamp Act forthwith.
8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present
petition is disposed of.
9. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
