[2025:RJ-JP:20281] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 107/2016 Vipul Agarwal S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Resident of C- 101, Maha Laxmi Plaza, Jawahar Nagar, Kota Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Kota 2. Deputy Inspector Of General, Registration And Ex-Officio Collector Stamps Circle, Kota 3. Sub Registrar-II, Registration Office, Kota ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Veerendra Singh, Adv. for Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aman Bohra, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 14/05/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No.11/2015, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1 South, Kota in Civil Suit No.121/2014, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which it was stated that the plaintiff purchased constructed Flat No.C-101, [2025:RJ-JP:20281] (2 of 4) [CSA-107/2016] Mahalaxmi Plaza, Jawahar Nagar, Kota from Vastuvedik Colonizer & Developers Pvt. Ltd. through registered sale deed dated 13.11.2007 in a sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/-. The builder purchased the plot in open auction from UIT, Kota where one ground floor, shopping complex, basement parking and multi-story flats were constructed. Flat of the plaintiff was used for residential purposes. However, an audit objection was raised that the rate of the flat should be Rs.27,26,873/- in place of Rs.12,11,086/-. Thereafter, a reference was made under Section 51 of Rajasthan Stamp Act on 09.01.2009 before DIG Registration and Officiating Collector (Stamps) Circle, Kota who purportedly issued a notice dated 03.03.2009 to the plaintiff but the said notice was never served upon the plaintiff. Despite that, the notice dated 03.03.2009 was illegally treated as served upon the plaintiff on 14.02.2011 and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him and recovery of Rs.1,22,000/- was sought to be made from the plaintiff and attachment warrant was issued. The plaintiff was directed to pay interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of order. The plaintiff filed an application on 25.11.2011 for setting aside the order dated 14.02.2011 but defendant No.2 arbitrarily issued a notice on 05.06.2014 requiring the plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,22,000/-. After service, defendants did not appear and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okn esa oknh izfroknh Øe 2 }kjk ikfjr vkns’k o uksfVl fnukad 5-6-14 dks 'kwU; o izHkkoghu ? kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:20281] (3 of 4) [CSA-107/2016] 2- vk;k okn esa oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk’k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknhx.k vius vkns’k fnukad 14-2-11 ds izHkko ls oknh ls dksbZ olwyh ugha djsa u gh vius izfrfuf/k ls djkosa\ 3- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Vipul Agarwal. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 04.04.2015, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as also the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Averments mentioned in the plaint were not controverted by the defendants because they had not filed the written statement. Their evidence of the plaintiff was uncontroverted. So, judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 04.04.2015 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned AAG appearing for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that disputed flat was used for commercial purposes. So, defendants rightly issued notice for recovery of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had alternate remedy to challenge the said notice in accordance with law. So, trial court as well as appellate court had [2025:RJ-JP:20281] (4 of 4) [CSA-107/2016] not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that the disputed property was a commercial property but registry was done as per the rates of the residential property. So, registry department rightly ordered to make recovery of Rs.1,22,000/-. However, the plaintiff has also an alternate remedy to challenge the said notice before the appropriate forum. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /81