Madhya Pradesh High Court
Milan Prajapati vs Shura@Raghunath Rathor on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52861
1 MP-5425-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5425 of 2025
MILAN PRAJAPATI
Versus
SHURA@RAGHUNATH RATHOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 passed by First Additional Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Katni in Civil Suit No.5A/2013, whereby, the application submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 46(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application has been filed for preparation of the lost agreement to sale dated 02.08.2010 at the expenses of the concerned officer from whose possession such document has been lost. The learned Court below has rejected the application on the ground that section 46(2) of the Act does not provided that such document shall be prepared at the cost of the concerned officer of the office of the Stamp Collector. It is submitted that under section 46(2) of the Act the provision has been made in respect of any document if lost from the office of the stamp Collector, then it shall be prepared at the expenses of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 17-10-2025 16:17:01 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52861 2 MP-5425-2025 such officer and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in law in not allowing the application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is evident from application Annexure P/11 filed for initiation of proceedings under section 46(2) of the Act as well as the impugned order that the agreement to sale dated 02.08.2010 has been lost from the office of the Stamp Collector.
5. Sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the Act provides that when any instrument is about to be so sent, the person from whose possession it came into the hands of the person impounding the same, may require a copy thereof to be made at the expense of such first mentioned person and authenticated by the person impounding such document. The provision no where suggest that if the document is lost from the office of Stamp Collector, the same shall be prepared at the cost of officer from whose possession such document has been lost. The provision does not fix any liability on such person of the office of the Stamp Collector to prepare the document at his expenses from whose possession the document has been lost.
6. Thus, from bare perusal of the provision of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The petition is misconceived is hereby dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards order sheet of the Court below dated 06.05.2025, wherein the Court has allowed the application for preparing the copy of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 17-10-2025 16:17:01 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52861 3 MP-5425-2025 said agreement with recovery of deficit stamp duty.
8. Thus, it is needless to observe that the Court below is required to get that document back with the stamp duty as directed by the Court below vide order dated 06.05.2025.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE anand Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 17-10-2025 16:17:01