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.
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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:-
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
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
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
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
