[2025:RJ-JP:11393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3645/2025 Mukesh Kumar Bairagi Son Of Kalyan Das Bairagi, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Sakatpura, Kota, At Present Residing At B-36, Balaji Town, Balita Road, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Chandrabhan Arvind Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Harijan Basti, Near Naval Park, Nayapura, Kota, Rajasthan. 2. Rajendra Prakash Rathore Son Of Sh. Ramgopal Rathore Teli, Resident Of Near Bundi Silika Company, Kunhadi, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/03/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1) against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Kota in Civil Suit No.116/2019, whereby the said court dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1 for not admitting insufficiently stamped document in evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against the defendants in which defendant No.1 filed an application before the trial court for [2025:RJ-JP:11393] (2 of 2) [CW-3645/2025] not admitting the insufficiently stamped document in evidence. Trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1 and observed that defendant No.1 has a right to cross-examine the plaintiff in regard to insufficiently stamped document in question. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that in the event document (secondary evidence) is impounded entire liability shall be of the defendant No.1 to pay the duty in the concerned department. So, order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the trial court be set aside and trial court be directed to impound the document and sent the same to the (Collector Stamps) for determination of the stamp duty and penalty thereon, which shall be borne by the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and perused the impugned order. Trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1 and also wrongly observed that defendant No.1 has right to cross-examine the plaintiff in regard to insufficiently stamped document in question. So, in my considered opinion, order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the Civil Writ Petition filed by the defendant No.1 is allowed. The order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to send the document in question to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and penalty thereon, which would be borne by the plaintiff. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /41