IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 112 CR-6774-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Balwinder Singh and Another …..Pe33oners Vs. Malwinder Singh and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the peoners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present revision peon filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, the peoners–decree holders have assailed the order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Execung Court in execuon case No. EXE/100/2023 tled “Balwinder Singh and another vs. Malwinder Singh”, whereby the peoners have been directed to affix stamp duty for execuon of the sale deed in accordance with the prevailing market/collector rate. 2. The factual background, in brief, is that the peoners had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 19.11.2007, which came to be decreed on 03.12.2019. The said decree a8ained finality, no appeal having been preferred. Therea9er, while dealing with certain objecons, the Trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2020 observed that the peoners were liable to pay stamp duty as per the rate prevailing on the date of execuon of the agreement to sell and not as per the prevailing collector rate, placing reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Harvinder Pal Singla vs. State of Haryana and others, 2017(3) RCR(civil) 386. 3. However, during execuon proceedings, the learned Execung Court passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-10) NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6774-2025 (O&M) direcng the peoners to deposit stamp duty as per the prevailing market rate at the me of execuon of the sale deed. While doing so, reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court tled as Uggar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 28680 of 2018 decided on 14.07.2025, in which the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case was overruled. 4. When the ma8er came up before this Court on 23.09.2025, noce was issued and me was granted to the peoners to address the legal posion as to whether stamp duty is payable at the rate prevailing on the date of agreement to sell or at the rate prevailing on the date of execuon of the sale deed. 5. Today, learned counsel for the peoners fairly concedes that no judgment taking a view contrary to the Division Bench judgment relied upon by the Execung Court could be brought to the noce of this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the peoner and have considered the ma8er. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, only in cases where there is patent illegality, perversity or jurisdiconal error in the impugned order. The High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over orders passed by subordinate courts. 8. In the present case, the Execung Court has directed the peoners to affix stamp duty on the sale deed at the rate prevailing on the date of execuon of the document. This view is in consonance with the se8led legal posion that stamp duty is a fiscal levy governed by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and is payable on the instrument at the rate applicable on the date of its execuon. The liability to pay stamp duty arises when the instrument is executed and not when the agreement to sell is entered into. 9. It is well se8led that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6774-2025 (O&M) create any right, tle or interest in immovable property and the conveyance of tle takes place only upon execuon of the sale deed. Consequently, for the purposes of stamp duty, the relevant date is the date of execuon of the conveyance and not the date of the antecedent agreement. 10. The earlier view, which permi8ed payment of stamp duty on the basis of the rate prevailing on the date of agreement, has since been reconsidered and overruled by a Division Bench of this Court. Once the Division Bench has authoritavely se8led the issue, the same is binding on all subordinate courts as well as on this Court in exercise of coordinate jurisdicon. The Execung Court has rightly followed the binding precedent and cannot be faulted for doing so. 11. The contenon that the Trial Court had earlier taken a different view also does not advance the case of the peoners. It is trite that an Execung Court is bound to apply the law as it stands on the date of execuon of the decree and is not precluded from following a subsequent binding precedent which clarifies the legal posion. 12. No perversity, illegality or jurisdiconal error has been pointed out in the impugned order. Rather, the order reflects correct applicaon of the prevailing legal posion. 13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision peon. The revision peon is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. 14. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document