[2025:RJ-JP:2968] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 339/2017 Ajay Sharma S/o Late Shri Nand Kishore Sharma, By Caste Brahmin, Nangal Jesa Bohra, Police Station Kardhani, Via Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kalu Ram S/o Late Shri Ghisa, Village Chak Basdi, Post Khora Bisal, Village Panchayat Peethawas, Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur. Since Expired, Now Being Represented Through Following Legal Heirs 1/1. Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o Late Shri Kalu Ram Yadav, 1/2. Narendra S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram Yadav 1/3. Navratan S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram Yadav, 2 Madanlal Yadav S/o Late Shri Ghisa, Village Chak Basdi, Post Khora Bisal, Village Panchayat Peethawas, Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur. 3. Hansraj Yadav S/o Late Shri Ghisa, Village Chak Basdi, Post Khora Bisal, Village Panchayat Peethawas, Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur. 4. Puran Yadav S/o Late Shri Ghisa, Village Chak Basdi, Post Khora Bisal, Village Panchayat Peethawas, Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Jai Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta with Mr. Yash Takhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 22 /01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 01.12.2016 [2025:RJ-JP:2968] (2 of 4) [CW-339/2017] passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in review application No. 110/2016 whereby the review application filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed, which was filed against the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court accepted the objections raised by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) and impounded the agreement to sell dated 06.01.2013 and sent it to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) for recovery of Rs. 51,01,101/- given by him as a part consideration of the agreement to sell dated 06.01.2013 and development charges Rs. 44,34,096/-, total amounting to Rs. 95,35,197/-. Learned senior counsel further submits that the defendants filed an application before the trial Court under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and another application under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. The trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2016 impounded the agreement to sell and directed to send the same to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon. Learned senior counsel further submits that plaintiff filed review application against the said order but the trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2016 dismissed the review application filed by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff had not filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract, he had only filed the suit for recovery of the [2025:RJ-JP:2968] (3 of 4) [CW-339/2017] advance consideration given by him and expenses incurred by him for development of the disputed land. So, the trial Court had committed an error in impounding the document and sending it to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon. Learned senior counsel also submits that the said agreement can be considered for collateral purposes. So, stamp duty is not payable thereon. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Bondar Singh and Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh’ reported in 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 222 and judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of ‘Fide Ali S/o Hakimuddinji Bohra Vs. Zaffar Hussain S/o Mohammad Hussain’ reported in 2021(4) RCR (Civil) 757. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff in his plaint had stated that the defendants had given possession of the disputed land to the plaintiff and the basis of the suit is so called agreement to sell dated 06.01.2013. Said agreement was insufficiently stamped. So, the trial Court has rightly impounded the agreement to sell and sent the same to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 15760/2015 connected with DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6437/2013. [2025:RJ-JP:2968] (4 of 4) [CW-339/2017] I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had not filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract rather he had filed the suit for recovery of the money that was given by him in part consideration of the agreement to sell dated 06.01.2013. Plaintiff had not sought any relief regarding specific performance of the contract. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in impounding the agreement to sell dated 06.01.2013 and sending it to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon and wrongly dismissed the review application. So, the orders dated 17.09.2016 and 01.12.2016 passed by the trial Court deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The orders dated 17.09.2016 and 01.12.2016 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/3