[2025:RJ-JP:720] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12009/2019 Mahesh Gandhi S/o Shri Jaswant Kumar Gandhi, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Khatri R/o 5/236 Kala Kua Housing Board, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Brij Bhusan Sharma S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sharma, By Caste Brahman R/o Pandit Ka Bas, Bakkhatal Ki Chauki, Alwar (Raj.) 2. Vijay Singh S/o Ram Singh, By Caste Panchal Luhar R/o Plot No. 11 Sheolalpura, Scheme No. 09, Alwar (Raj) (deceased) 2/1. Smt. Shakuntala @ Sukko Bai widow of Vijay Singh 2/2. Jai Singh son of Late Shri Vijay Singh 2/3. Raju son of Late Shri Vijay Singh 2/4. Balbir Son of Late Shri Vijay Singh All are resident of Mohalla Sheolalpura, Scheme No. 9, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1- petitioner (for short ‘the defendant’) for setting aside the order dated 01.06.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge No. 3, Alwar in civil suit No. 34/291/2013 whereby the application filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff No. 1 (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has been allowed, the document agreement to sell dated 19.04.2002 has been impounded and sent to Collector Stamps, [2025:RJ-JP:720] (2 of 3) [CW-12009/2019] Alwar for imposition of penalty and determination of stamp duty payable thereon. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of the agreement to sell and permanent injunction in which plaintiff filed an application before the trial court that agreement to sell dated 19.04.2002 is unregistered and insufficiently stamped, so, said document is inadmissible in the evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that after execution of the said agreement to sell registry was done. So, at the time of execution of the agreement, registration was not necessary and there was no need to send the document for impounding. So, order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) V. Dharma Reddy & Ors. Vs. S. Hariram in Civil Revision Petition No.2501/2004 decided on 30.07.2004; (2) Deepak Soni & Anr. Vs. Kodar Mal & Anr. in Civil Writ Petition No.841, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152 and 1153 of 2009 decided on 12.09.2012 and (3) Gangaram Vs. Prashant Singh & Ors. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15806/2016 decided on 24.07.2017. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that the said agreement to sell was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. So, trial court rightly ordered for impounding the same. So, the present petition be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:720] (3 of 3) [CW-12009/2019] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the so-called agreement to sell dated 19.04.2002 is insufficiently stamped. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly ordered for impounding the same and to send stamp to the Collector Stamps for imposition of penalty and determination of stamp duty payable thereon. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/302