19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7493 OF 2005 Shantilal Dagdulal Navlakha ...Petitioner Versus Anil Bandopant Chillal And Anr. ...Respondents **** Mr. P.B. Shah a/w Ms. Gunjan Shah and Mr. Varchasva Pandey for the Petitioner. None for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for Respondent No.2/State. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging order dated 20.07.2005 passed below Exh. 35/142 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1892 of 1997. By the said impugned order, the document of lease dated 16.04.1994 is impounded and the Petitioner is directed to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty, as calculated under the said order. 2. The Petitioner is Plaintiff in the said suit filed against Respondent No.1 / sole Defendant. The said suit is filed for direction to the Respondent No.1 to register lease deed dated 16.04.1994 which is executed for a period of 99 years. The Petitioner has sought declaration that it is binding upon Respondent No.1 to register lease deed dated 16.04.1994 which is a lease for 99 years in favour of the Petitioner. A prayer is made that if Respondent No.1 does not register the lease deed, then the same be registered through the Court Commissioner. Further prayer for damages/compensation is also made. A declaration is also Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.09.28 18:44:37 +0530 19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc sought that Respondent No.1 is not entitled to disturb the Petitioner’s possession and perpetual injunction protecting Petitioner’s possession, is also prayed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Shah submitted that the Application Exh. 142 was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff with a prayer to call for ‘report from the stamping authority’ and showing willingness that the Petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of stamp duty as per Rules in the Court. He submitted that the Court was never called upon to calculate the amount of stamp-duty and penalty. He submitted that the impugned order interpreting the document of lease as a conveyance under Article 25 of the The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is perverse. 4. Record shows that on 27.10.2005, when notices were issued, the effect and operation of impugned order was stayed on condition that the Petitioner deposits deficit stamp-duty and 50% of the penalty within a period of 2 weeks in the Trial Court. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit, placing on record a receipt showing that the amount is deposited by the Petitioner in the Trial Court on 08.11.2005. Petitioner has filed such affidavit pursuant to order passed by this Court. 5. On 30.11.2009, the petition was admitted and ad-interim order was continued until further orders. It was clarified that pendency of the petition shall not operate as stay to further proceedings before the Trial Court. Even then, learned Counsel for the Petitioner informed, on instructions that the said suit is still pending and not decided by the Trial Court. Statement is accepted. Sneha Chavan 2 19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc 6. As per the office note, Rule notice is duly served upon the Respondent No.1 i.e. sole Defendant. However, nobody appeared for Respondent No.1 despite due service. 7. Learned AGP has submitted that aspect of proper stamp duty and penalty, if any, be kept open for decision in accordance with law. 8. I have considered the submissions and perused the impugned order. 9. It appears that the learned Trial Judge has calculated the deficit stamp duty as well as penalty amount, even when the Court was not called upon to do so. The application filed by the Petitioner merely prayed for ‘calling a report from the Stamp Authority’ and placing on record willingness of the Petitioner to deposit the amount in Court. 10. As per application Exh. 142, after the oral evidence was over and when the suit was to be heard, according to the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Defendant was adopting delaying tactics, such as raising objection about stamp duty and therefore, as a ‘without-prejudice gesture’, the application was filed praying for report from concerned stamp authority and placing on record willingness to deposit the amount in the Court. 11. From the prayers made in the plaint, apparently the suit is in the nature of specific performance, seeking direction to the Defendant to register the lease deed and for getting the document registered through Court process in case the Defendant fails to honour the promise. Other prayers about injunction and compensation are also made. Sneha Chavan 3 19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc 12. From the impugned order, it is seen that the Advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff had submitted that for the purpose of determining stamp duty and penalty, the document is to be referred to the Collector of Stamps. 13. Learned Trial Judge has however referred to Articles 25 and 26 of the The Bombay Stamp Act and has foreclosed the issue about applicable stamp-duty and penalty, when it was neither the purport nor the scope of the application. 14. Nonetheless, since the main prayer in the suit is for direction to the Defendant to register the lease deed, the aspect of applicable stamp duty and penalty will have to be considered by the appropriate stamping authority and to that extent, rival contentions of the parties will have to be kept open. 15. The suit has remained pending for a long time and therefore, it is necessary that the suit is decided on merits as soon as possible. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons indicated above, over all it appears that the impugned order is passed perversely, without being called upon and without there been an occasion for deciding the stamp-duty and penalty. Hence, interference is required. 17. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of and the Rule is made partly absolute by passing following order : (i) The impugned order dated 20.07.2005 is quashed and set aside. Sneha Chavan 4 19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc (ii) Learned Trial Judge hearing the said suit, is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of 9 months from receipt of this order. Parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for early disposal. (iii) All contentions of both sides in respect of applicable stamp duty and penalty, if any, as applicable on date of the lease deed, are kept open and to be decided in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion in that regard. (iv) The amount deposited by the Petitioner in the Trial Court shall continue to be deposited, subject to final outcome of the suit. 18. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 5