Court Orders Compliance with Stamp Duty Procedures to Expedite Trial in Specific Performance Suit
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has mandated the expeditious resolution of a civil suit that has been languishing in the courts since 2014. The suit, which hinges on the admissibility of certain documents, was delayed due to disputes regarding their stamp duty and registration status. The court's order, delivered by Justice Farjand Ali, emphasizes the need to adhere to statutory procedures to expedite the trial process.
The case, titled "Harisingh Rajput v. Dr. Chhail Singh," concerns a writ petition challenging an order by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The petitioner, Harisingh Rajput, sought the resolution of a preliminary issue regarding the admissibility of documents, which were neither registered nor sufficiently stamped. This issue, identified as Issue No. 4, has been pending without resolution, leading to significant delays in the trial.
The High Court's judgment clarifies the legal stance on unregistered documents in suits for specific performance. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri," the court reiterated that unregistered agreements could be admitted in evidence for specific performance suits, per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, documents lacking adequate stamp duty must comply with the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, before being considered in evidence.
Justice Ali's order directs the trial court to send the disputed document to the Collector for assessment of the deficient stamp duty. The court emphasized that the trial should proceed in accordance with the law once the requisite duty and penalty are paid. This directive aims to ensure that procedural delays do not hinder the progress of the suit, which has been pending for over a decade.
The judgment underscores the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, focusing on ensuring that subordinate courts operate within legal bounds. The prolonged pendency of the issue warranted intervention to uphold statutory procedures and facilitate timely case resolution.
The court has set a nine-month timeframe for the trial's completion, acknowledging the extended delays experienced by the litigants. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to efficient case management and the importance of adhering to legal procedures to prevent undue delays.
Bottom Line :
A document that is insufficiently stamped cannot be received in evidence in its current form; however, the defect is curable upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty. An unregistered agreement to sell, in a suit for specific performance, can be received in evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XIV Rule 2; Registration Act, 1908, Section 49; Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, Section 39; Constitution of India, Article 227.
Harisingh Rajput v. Dr. Chhail Singh, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2966538
