[2025:RJ-JP:10844] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3484/2025 Mangal Singh S/o Shri Gangadeen, Resident Of 786/16 Asha Ganj Rawan Ki Bagichi, Ajmer (Died During Pendency Of The Suit) Through Legal Representatives Khem Chand Alias Pintu S/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Resident Of 786/16, Rawan Ki Bagichi Asha Ganj Road, Ajmer District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bhagwan Singh Palariya S/o Shri Hari Singh Palariya, Resident Of Zones Ganj, Ghadi Maliyan Road, Ajmer. 2. Jagan S/o Late Shri Laxman, Resident Of Maliyan Road, Ajmer. 3. Deceased Amar Singh S/o Late Shri Laxman, Through His LR 3/1. Mahendra S/o Late Shri Amar Chand, Resident Of Near Railway Line, Ghadi Maliyan, Ajmer. 3/2. Surendra S/o Late Shri Amar Chand, Resident Of Near Railway Line, Ghadi Maliyan, Ajmer. 3/3. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Amar Chand, Resident Of Near Railway Line, Ghadi Maliyan, Ajmer. 3/4. Kumari Asha D/o Late Shri Amar Chand, Resident Of Near Railway Line, Ghadi Maliyan, Ajmer. 4. Bhag Chand S/o Late Shri Laxman, Resident Of Ghadi Maliyan, Ajmer. 5. Smt. Chanda W/o Shri Chottu D/o Late Shri Laxman, Resident Of Near Hospital Village Srinagar, Tehsil Nasriabad, District Ajmer. 6. Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Resident Of 786/16, Rawan Ki Bagichi, Asha Ganj Road, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.) 7. Jitendra S/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Resident Of 786/16, Rawan Ki Bagichi, Asha Ganj Road, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.) 8. Nawal S/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Resident Of 786/16, Rawan Ki Bagichi, Asha Ganj Road, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:10844] (2 of 4) [CW-3484/2025] 9. Smt. Neetu D/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Resident Of 786/16, Rawan Ki Bagichi, Asha Ganj Road, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain, Adv. for respondent Nos.6 to 9. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/03/2025 Defect(s) pointed out by the Registry is waived. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.38/2024, whereby the trial court disposed of the application filed by respondents under Order 13 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act and Section 17 of Registration Act with a direction to the petitioner to submit certified copy of the agreement in question for impounding and the trial court also directed to send the same to the DIG Stamps for proper stamping. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed a suit against the respondents in which petitioner filed an affidavit in evidence and agreement to sell dated 19.11.1993 was exhibited as Ex.1. Respondents filed an application before the trial court under Order 13 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act and Section 17 of Registration Act for de-exhibiting the document is being improperly stamped and unregistered. The trial court vide order dated 25.02.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:10844] (3 of 4) [CW-3484/2025] while disposing of the application filed by the respondents directed the petitioner to submit the certified copy of the document in question being not stamped and unregistered for impounding and also directed to send the same to the DIG (Stamps) for proper stamping. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once a document is exhibited, then it amounts to an admission. So, order with regard to exhibiting document cannot be recalled. Trial court has committed an error in impounding the document in question and sending the same to DIG (Stamps) for proper stamping. So, the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that so-called agreement is not properly stamped and unregistered. So, trial court rightly impounded the document and sent the same to DIG (Stamps) for proper stamping because on account of being sufficiently stamped, it cannot be read in evidence as per law. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s). It is an admitted position that trial court had marked Ex.1 so-called agreement but it was improperly stamped. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly impounded the document and sent the so-called agreement to the DIG (Stamps) for proper stamping but registration is not necessary in the present suit for the reason that the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed. So, [2025:RJ-JP:10844] (4 of 4) [CW-3484/2025] present petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the suit after document in question is sufficiently stamped. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /198