1 2025:CGHC:18025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1045 of 2018 1 - Brijmohan Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs.- Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Brijmohan Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Danipara, Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-10- 2024) 2 - Smt. Bulbul Agrawal W/o Shri Badal Prakash Jindal Aged About 44 Years R/o N.H. No. 6 Main Road, Pushpkunj, Bargarh, Odisha. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-10-2024) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Brajbhushan Pradhan Somanth Pradhan R/o Delsara, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For respondent : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.B-300/2010 dated 15.10.2018 whereby, the application moved by the plaintiff under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the -2- Stamp Act’) was disposed of and it was observed that the admissibility of the document i.e. rent agreement would be adjudicated at the time of the final hearing of the suit. 2. Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the rent agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 30.04.2009. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,19,472/-. He would further submit that the tractor and hydraulic tractor-trolley were taken on rent by the plaintiff from the defendant and in this regard, a rent agreement was executed between the parties and a security amount of Rs.3,70,000/- was given to the defendant and thus, that document was necessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties. He would contend that the rent agreement was not properly stamped but it was produced before the learned Trial Court therefore, an application was moved for impounding the document. He would further contend that the learned Trial Court partly allowed the application and the document was taken on record but with regard to the proper stamp duty, no steps were taken. He would also contend that according to the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, the concerned Court was required to refer the document to the Collector Stamp to assess the amount of stamp duty. He would pray for a direction to the learned concerned Court to refer the document i.e. rent agreement to the Collector 3 Stamp for assessment of the proper stamp duty. He would refer to para 17 of the judgment passed in the matter of Shyamlal and another Vs. Rambai and others, WP (227) No.810 of 2017 decided on 22.03.2025. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. In the matter of Shyamlal (supra), while dealing with the provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act the following was held in para 17:- “17) In the matter of Umesh Kumar Prakashchandra Sharma v. Rajaram Ramchandra Jat and another reported in AIR 2010 MP 158, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with Section 33 of the Stamp Act held that when the document is produced before the Court, and the Court impounds the same,the Collector (Stamp) would have no jurisdiction to impound the document under Section 33 of the Stamp Act but the Collector will have to receive the document from a Court then proceed in accordance with law. Once the matter is referred to the Collector under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act, then he has to decide whether the said instrument is duly stamped or not. Once he decides that the document is duly stamped, then he shall certify by the endorsement thereon that the document is duly stamped or that it is not so chargeable with the stamp duty. However, if the Collector comes to the conclusion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of five rupees.” 5. According to the provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the Court after impounding the document is required to refer the -4- document to the Collector according to the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act to decide the issue as to whether the document is duly stamped or not. Once the Collector decides that the document is duly stamped then he shall certify it by the endorsement thereon that the document is duly stamped or that it is not so chargeable with the stamp duty. If the Collector comes to the conclusion that such an instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty. 6. It appears that in the present case, the learned Trial Court after impounding the document failed to take steps according to Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act and further decided to adjudicate the matter with regard to the admissibility of the document at the final stage which appears to be erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Sections 33 and 38 of the Stamp Act. 7. In the light of the above-discussed facts and law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Court to refer the document i.e. the rent agreement to the concerned Collector (Stamp) according to the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. 5 9. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha