Heera Ram vs A.D.J. No.1,Jodhpur & Ors on 19 November, 2008

S.B.C.W.P. NO.6174/2007- Heeram Ram vs. ADJ No.1, Jodhpur   Order dt: 19/11/08

                                         1/3


               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6174/2007
                  (Heeram Ram vs. ADJ No.1, Jodhpur)

                      DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008

              HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI


Mr.J.K.Bhaiya, for the petitioner.
Mr.Shashidhar, for the respondent.


1.     Heard learned counsels.

2.     This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9/11/2006,

whereby, the learned trial court directed that the document in

question, an agreement between the defendant and contractor for

construction of house, falls within the definition of agreement on

which appropriate stamp duty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamps

Act may be paid and then only it can be admitted in evidence.

3.     Learned counsel for the respondent submits that said document

will fall within the definition of clause (5) relating to agreement or

memorandum of an agreement prescribed in Appendix B to the

Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1952 Schedule, wherein, if the agreement does

not fall in any specified category of agreement then the stamp duty

payable with regard to such agreement is Rs.100/-. Learned counsel

for the respondent submits that on the said agreement between the

defendant and contractor stamp duty of Rs. 100/- has already been
 S.B.C.W.P. NO.6174/2007- Heeram Ram vs. ADJ No.1, Jodhpur     Order dt: 19/11/08

                                         2/3


paid by the defendant and, therefore, in terms of said order dt:

9/11/2006, the said document is now admissible in evidence.

4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits

that since this Court vide order dated 27/9/2007 has already directed

this document Ex.A/1 to be impounded and to be sent to the Collector

(Stamps) for determination, therefore, decision of the Collector may

be awaited. However, he is unable to point out whether this

agreement between the defendant and the Contractor falls outside the

definition of agreement as defined in clause (5) (c ) of the Schedule or

not.

5.     On a bare perusal of said Schedule, it is clear that agreement

between the defendant and contractor falls within the definition of

agreement, which the trial court itself has so found in the impugned

order. Since the defendant has already affixed the stamp of Rs.100/-

on the said document, the same becomes admissible in evidence in

accordance with law.

5.     In view of above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of

merit and same is accordingly dismissed.



                                                  (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.

item no.15
S.B.C.W.P. NO.6174/2007- Heeram Ram vs. ADJ No.1, Jodhpur Order dt: 19/11/08

3/3

baweja/-