[2026:RJ-JP:12462] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4891/2026 1. Smt. Pushpa Sharma, W/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma, 2. Mahesh Sharma, S/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma 3. Kanwar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma 4. Dilip Sharma S/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma, All Residents Of Plot No. Sd-212, Shanti Nagar, Hatwada Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors/Defendants Versus 1. Shravan Kumar Joshi S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 35, Dev Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ………..Respondent/Decree-Holder/Plaintiff 2. Smt. Beena Kumari D/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma, W/o Shri Shiv Kumar @ Bunty, R/o Plot No. Sd-212, Shanti Nagar, Hatwada Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan At Present Resident Of Through Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Chetan Prakash Ji Pancholi, Senior Teacher, Sambhar Lake Tehsil Sambhar, District Jaipur. 3. Smt. Annapurna Sharma D/o Late Shri Radha Mohan Sharma, W/o Shri Rajesh Sharma, R/o Plot No. Sd-212, Shanti Nagar, Hatwada Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan At Present R/o Choudhary Bulding, Near By Panchayat Samiti, Pankha Kanta, Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Proforma-Respondents/Judgment-Debtors/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Chandra Goyal with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Mr. Sumit Rawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (2 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 17.03.2026 Date on which the judgment was reserved 17.03.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of pronouncement 25.03.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Civil Misc. Application No. 203/2025 (Execution No. 03/2022), whereby the application filed by the defendants-judgment-debtors-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ‘judgment-debtors’) under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), raising objections to the execution of the decree, has been rejected. 2. Shorn of the facts, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.02.2010 was filed by the plaintiff- decree holder-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘decree-holder’). The suit was decided vide judgment dated 27.09.2021, and the decree was drawn on 12.10.2021. 3. The decree-holder thereafter filed an execution petition before the learned Executing Court. In the said execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 CPC, contending that the execution was sought on the basis of an order allegedly dated 29.09.2021, whereas no such order existed. It was further contended that the decree-holder had failed to comply with the directions contained in the decree, particularly the requirement to pay appropriate stamp duty on the agreement [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (3 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] to sell by approaching the Collector (Stamps). According to the judgment-debtors, the stamp duty was paid belatedly on 24.03.2022, i.e., beyond the prescribed period of two months, rendering the execution petition liable to be rejected. 4. It was also contended that the stamp duty and penalty paid were insufficient and that the Collector (Stamps) had not issued any notice to the judgment-debtors, nor were their objections invited, thereby vitiating the process. Further objections included that the learned Trial Court had rejected the relief of possession, and therefore, the decree-holder could not now seek possession through execution and therefore the entire decree is inexecutable. It was also argued that ownership cannot be conferred merely on the basis of an agreement to sell and that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, making the decree inexecutable. 5. The learned Executing Court, after hearing both parties, allowed an application filed by the decree-holder under Section 151 CPC and permitted correction of the date of judgment from 29.09.2021 to 27.09.2021, holding it to be a typographical error. Thereafter, the learned Executing Court considered all objections raised by the petitioners-judgment-debtors and rejected the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the judgment-debtors reiterated that the decree is inexecutable as the decree-holder failed to pay stamp duty within the stipulated period of two months. It was further argued that the judgment-debtors were not heard by the Collector (Stamps). Additionally, it was submitted that since no decree for [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (4 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] possession was granted, the decree for execution of the sale deed under specific performance cannot be enforced. 7. Learned counsel also contended that the learned Trial Court did not declare any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; therefore, the decree-holder could not have obtained possession, rendering the decree incapable of execution. Further, objections were raised regarding the validity of the decree itself, contending that the provisions of CPC, particularly Order 20 Rule 6A, 7, and 9, were not complied with while drawing the decree. On this basis, it was argued that the decree was defective and hence inexecutable. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 be quashed and set aside, the objections under Section 47 CPC be allowed, and the execution proceedings be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the judgment-debtors and perused the material available on record. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors is that the decree-holder failed to comply with the condition of payment of stamp duty and penalty before the Collector (Stamps) within the stipulated period of two months as directed in the judgment dated 27.09.2021, and since the payment was made beyond the said period without seeking extension, the decree has become inexecutable. 10. This Court finds that the responsibility of the decree-holder was limited to approaching the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the requisite stamp duty and penalty, since determination does not lie within the plaintiff’s domain. [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (5 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] 11. It is further observed that after the judgment dated 27.09.2021 and preparation of the decree on 12.10.2021, the decree-holder approached the learned Trial Court within the stipulated period of two months by filing an application seeking release of the original agreement to sell for the purpose of presenting it before the Collector (Stamps) in compliance with the decree. The said application was filed on 22.11.2021, and the learned Trial Court directed release of the document on 07.01.2022. Thereafter, the document was duly stamped by the Collector on 24.03.2022. 12. When queried regarding the date on which the document was submitted before the Collector (Stamps) after its receipt on 07.01.2022, learned counsel for the judgment-debtors submitted that the document was placed to Collector (Stamps) on 03.02.2022. In any case, it is evident that the decree-holder was handed the document only on 07.01.2022; therefore, the period of two months would reasonably commence from that date. Since the document was submitted on 03.02.2022, within two months from the date of receipt i.e. 07.01.2022, and the same was stamped on 24.03.2022, substantial compliance with the judgment is established. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds that there has been due compliance of payment of the stamp duty in terms of the judgment dated 27.09.2021, and on that account, the decree cannot be held to be inexecutable. 14 The next argument of the learned counsel for the judgment debtors is that, while preparing the decree, the provisions of Order [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (6 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] 20 Rules 6A, 7, and 9 CPC have not been followed. In this regard, this Court finds that the preparation of a decree is the responsibility of the Court and not of the litigant. Although this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the preparation of the decree. This Court finds that the decree has been drawn as per “Appendix D No. 1” of the Civil Procedure Code. Even otherwise, if there is any irregularity in its preparation, since preparation of decree is the responsibility of the Court, the litigant cannot be held responsible. On such grounds, the decree cannot be held to be inexecutable. Moreover, where the decree has not been challenged and has attained finality, the contention that it has not been drawn in accordance with Order 20 Rules 6A, 7, and 9 CPC cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected. 15. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors is that no notice was issued to them by the Collector (Stamps) prior to stamping the agreement to sell. 16. Learned counsel for the judgment-debtors has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. This Court finds that, in the present case, directions were issued by the learned Trial Court, and the payment of stamp duty was required to be borne by the decree-holder, as is evident from the judgment dated 27.09.2021 as well as the decree dated 12.10.2021. 17. In such facts and circumstances, when the burden was on the decree-holder to pay the stamp duty, this Court finds that there was no requirement to issue notice to the judgment-debtors. [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (7 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] The adequacy of stamp duty cannot be challenged on the ground that notice was not issued by the Collector (Stamps). 18. This Court also observes that the payment of stamp duty is a matter between the State and the person seeking to benefit from an instrument that is insufficiently stamped. Since the State, through its Collector (Stamps), has recovered the appropriate stamp duty from the decree holder, no illegality is found so as to render the decree inexecutable, as pleaded by the judgment debtors. 19. The last argument of the judgment-debtors that the decree of possession has been declined therefore the decree of specific performance is inexecutable. This Court is well aware of the fact that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree but to deal with this argument, this Court finds it necessary to see the judgment dated 27.09.2021. On perusal of the judgment dated 27.09.2021, in para 42 of the judgment, the Court has recorded that the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the plaintiff through Exhibit 3; thereafter the property in dispute was given to the petitioner on rent; the plaintiff was asked to recover possession under the Rent Control Act as after the rent note by the petitioner in favor of the plaintiff, the relationship of landlord-tenant has come in existence and in that circumstances the relief of possession was declined. The said judgment has not been challenged and has attained finality. 20. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity so as [2026:RJ-JP:12462] (8 of 8) [CW-4891/2026] to warrant any interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/