Raj Kumar Dehuri vs Rama Chandra Rana ... Opposite Party on 15 December, 2025

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 19-Dec-2025 13:54:11



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                CMP No.953 of 2025
                  (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                  India)

                   Raj Kumar Dehuri                              ....                 Petitioner

                                                              -versus-

                   Rama Chandra Rana                             ...             Opposite Party

                  Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                               For Petitioner          :   Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate

                               For Opp. Party          :   Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate

                                 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                                                  JUDGMENT

th 15 December, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms. P. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

B, Das, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 15th April, 2025 of

learned Senior Civil Judge, Birmaharajpur passed in CS No.141 of

2014, wherein the prayer of the defendant to impound the sale deed

(Ext.B) has been refused.

3. Present opposite party being the plaintiff filed the suit praying

for declaration of his possession over the suit land as genuine, for

permanent injunction and other reliefs. Present petitioner being the

defendant after his appearance pursued his case that there is a sale

deed in his favour executed on 28th March, 1979 (Ext.B). Said sale

deed under Ext.B is an unregistered document and at this stage of the

suit the defendant seeks impounding of the same through the trial

court. In support of his case Ms. Naidu refers to a decision in the

case of Saran Dass and Others v. Smt. Situ and Others, AIR 1986

Himanchal Pradesh 1.

4. It is true that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899

authorizes the court to issue direction for impounding where the

instrument is rendered as insufficiently stamped to be void or invalid

on that ground and such defect can be curated by payment of proper

stamp in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 2320 while dealing with earlier decisions, have held as

follows:-

"17. The object of the Act is not to exclude evidence or to enable parties to avoid obligations on technical grounds. Rather,

the object is to obtain revenue even from such instruments which are at the first instance unstamped or insufficiently stamped. The said objective has the twin elements of recovering the due stamp duty and penalty, and also the public policy of binding parties to the agreed obligations. It is apposite to refer to the declaration of law by a seven-judge bench's judgment of this Court on the object of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

17.1. In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court noted that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (analogous to Section 34 of the Act) unambiguously requires an instrument chargeable with stamp duty to only be "admitted in evidence" if it is properly stamped. This Court further noted that improperly stamping the instrument does not render that instrument void or invalid. On the contrary, it is a defect which is curable upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty. The relevant paragraph reads thus:

"54. Section 35 of the Stamp Act is unambiguous. It stipulates, "No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence..." The term "admitted in evidence"

refers to the admissibility of the instrument. Sub-section (2) of Section 42, too, states that an instrument in respect of which stamp-duty is paid and which is endorsed as such will be "admissible in evidence." The effect of not paying duty or paying an inadequate amount renders an instrument inadmissible and not void. Non-stamping or improper stamping does not result in the instrument becoming invalid. The Stamp Act does not render such an instrument void. The non-payment of stamp duty is

accurately characterised as a curable defect. The Stamp Act itself provides for the manner in which the defect may be cured and sets out a detailed procedure for it. It bears mentioning that there is no procedure by which a void agreement can be "cured."

17.2. In Hindustan Steel Limited v. Dilip Construction Company, (1969) 1 SCC 597, this Court held that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a fiscal measure intended to raise revenue, and the stringent provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be used as a weapon to defeat the cause of the opponent. The relevant paragraph reads thus:

"7. The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments: It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of the initial defect in the instrument. Viewed in that light the scheme is clear."

17.3. The ratio in District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496 and State of Maharashtra v. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 497 and Chiranji Lal v. Haridas, (2005) 10 SCC 746 reiterated that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a piece of fiscal legislation, and not a remedial statute enacted on demand of the permanent public policy to receive a liberal interpretation. The principles for interpreting a fiscal provision/law are fairly settled. There is no scope for equity or judiciousness if the letter of law is clear and unambiguous in method, mode and manner of levy and

collection. The decisions further held that the act authorises involuntary extraction of money, and therefore, is in the nature fiscal statute which has to be interpreted strictly.

17.4. Section 37 of the Act stipulates the procedure on how the instrument impounded is dealt with. The plain reading of Section 37(1) of the Act discloses that the person impounding the instrument under Section 33 of the Act and after receiving the penalty under Section 34 of the Act or duty under Section 36 of the Act, shall send to the Deputy Commissioner an authenticated copy of such instrument together with the amount of duty and penalty so levied and collected. Section 37(2) of the Act deals with an instrument not subjected to the procedure of Sections 34 or 36 of the Act. According to Section 37(2) of the Act, the instrument is sent to the Deputy Commissioner for enquiry and decision at his end. The Deputy Commissioner gets jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act and then decides the duty and also the penalty leviable on the insufficiently stamped instrument. In this background, we take note of the principle laid down on the distinction in the discretion available to Every Person/Court and the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on the District Registrar. See, United Precision Engineers (supra) and Gangappa (supra).

The settled distinction and discretion available under Sections 34 and 39 of the Act is no more res integra."

5. The aforesaid being settled position of law there is no doubt

on the authority of the court to impound a document insufficiently

stamped in course of adjudication of a suit. But in the instant case as

the question is relating existence of the very document under Ext.B

as doubtful, and it is specifically averred by the plaintiff that no such

sale deed was ever in existence in favour of the defendant and such a

document under Ext.B is a created one, the same cannot be permitted

to be impounded at this stage. Therefore when the existence of very

document is rendered doubtful it would not be proper on the part of

the court to direct for impounding of the same to make out a case in

favour of the contending party. The purpose of the defendant here in