[2025:RJ-JP:3225] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10336/2007 Laddu Gopal son of Late Shri Ganesh Narain Soni 2. Tulsi Ram son of Late Shri Ganesh Narain Soni both residents of House No. 3673, Langar Ke Balaji Ka Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rameshwar Prasad Vijayvargiya son of Late Shri Govind Ran Ji Vijay 2. Smt. Vimla Devi wife of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Vijayvargiya 3. Sitaram Vijay son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Vijayvargiya all residents of House NO. 3926, “A”, Deenanathji Ka Rasta Akhari Chauraha, Purani Basti, Jaipur 4. State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Collectorate Premises, Bani Park, Jaipur 5. Additional District Collector (Stamp and Registration) Officer-Stamp and Registration Bhawan, Collectorate Premises, Bani Park, Jaipur 6. Sub-Registrar Office (Vth) Office-Stamp and Registration Bhawan, Collectorate Premises, Bani Park, Jaipur 7. Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No. 148/2006, whereby the application filed by [2025:RJ-JP:3225] (2 of 3) [CW-10336/2007] the defendants under Section 3 read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed the suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement and permanent injunction in which defendants filed an application before the trial Court under Section 3 read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 that agreement to sell dated 15.11.2004 (Annexure-2) is insufficiently stamped, so, the said document without payment of requisite stamp it cannot be considered in evidence. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants whereas the agreement to sell filed by the plaintiffs was required to be impounded. Therefore, the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because the said document was insufficiently stamped. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement. The agreement to sell filed by the plaintiffs was insufficiently stamped. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error [2025:RJ-JP:3225] (3 of 3) [CW-10336/2007] in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The petition filed by the plaintiffs is allowed and the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the trial Court is directed to impound agreement to sell and same sent to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty payable thereon. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/129