[2025:RJ-JP:5956-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19744/2019 J.P. Malhotra S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal Malhotra, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-85, Mandi Khatikaan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner/Non-Applicant No.1 (Purchaser) Versus 1. Collector (Stamp), Jaipur Division-II, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent 2. Regional Sub-Registrar, Bassi, District Jaipur ----Respondent/Applicant 3. Devendra S/o Shri Srinarayan, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Jitendra S/o Shri Srinarayan, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Smt. Kavita W/o Shri Srinarayan, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Rakesh S/o Shri Ramniwas Balai, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Hemant S/o Shri Ramniwaas Balai, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 8. Kamalkant S/o Shri Ramniwas Balai, Resident of Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Proforma Respondents/Non-Applicant No.2 (Seller) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K.Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr.Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 11/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 11.06.2019 and 22.05.2014 rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and creating demand of stamp duty. [2025:RJ-JP:5956-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-19744/2019] 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner on 04.07.2004 entered into an agreement to sell with the proforma respondents (in this petition). On failure of the proforma respondents to execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance was filed. During the suit proceedings, the agreement was impounded and sent to the Collector (Stamps) for payment of requisite stamp duty. The Collector (Stamps) vide order dated 22.05.2014 quantified the benefits of Stamp duty, surcharge and levied penalty. On receipt of the notice for payment of stamp duty, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was rejected on 11.06.2019 by a short order stating that the reasoned order shall follow. 3. The grievance raised is that there is no reasoned order passed by the Collector (Stamps). 4. The respondents filed reply but there is no pleading that the impugned order was followed by a reasoned order. 5. In view of the above, the order dated 11.06.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector (Stamps) to decide the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. 6. Needless to say, the proforma respondents were not served at this stage. In case there is a grievance, the proforma respondents shall be at liberty to file an application for recalling of the order. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/26