Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Wadhwa vs Satnam Singh And Others on 20 November, 2025
CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(116) CR-5769-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-20.11.2025
RAMAN WADHWA
...Petitioner
Versus
SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate with
Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
for the respondents No.1 and 2.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. In view of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 30764 of 2025, whereby the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by this Court in the instant petition has been set aside and the matter has been remitted with a direction to re- hear the civil revision afresh within two weeks from today and the same be decided in accordance with law.
2. On 26.08.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran vide which photocopy of the 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:2:- agreement to sell was ordered to be not impounded, but deficient stamp duty and penalty was ordered to be paid.
2. The order has been assailed on the grounds that as per provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 only an original document can be validated and photocopy of the document cannot be validated.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order minutely.
4. After perusal of impugned order relevant extract of para No.6 of the same are reproduced as under:-
"6. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession of suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dt. 05.03.2018 allegedly executed by deceased Roshan Singh predecessor in interest of the defendants who are contesting the present suit being legal heirs of deceased Roshan Singh. The contesting defendants have denied execution of agreement to sell dt. 05.03 2018 by deceased Roshan Singh and when the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs, the present application has been moved by them seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty, whereas on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the contesting defendant has vehemently argued that alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has not been produced on file by the plaintiffs and one page of the same is missing and the plaintiffs have sought permission from this Court to prove the same by way of secondary evidence by moving application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was allowed by be then Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023 and as the original document has not been produced on file, the present application cannot be allowed as the copy of stamp paper has been produced in the Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.4910 of 2023, decided on 29.11.2023 has specifically held that if a document at is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped then the position of law well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced. No doubt, in the present case the original stamp paper has not been produced before the Court but the facts of the abovesaid judgment 2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:3:- passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are not applicable to the present case as in the present case the question before this Court is not as to whether the insufficiently stamped agreement can be allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence as the said issue has already been decided by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dt. 24.08.2023, rather the present application has been moved by the plaintiffs seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty on the stamp papers on which the alleged agreement dt. 05.03.2018 has been written. No doubt, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in abovesaid judgment has held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act forbids the letting of secondary evidence in proof of its contents. The Section excludes both the original instrument and secondary evidence of its contents if it needs to be stamped or sufficiently stamped. This bar as to the admissibility of the documents is absolute. Where a document cannot be received in evidence on the ground that it is not duly stamped, the secondary evidence thereof is equally inadmissible in evidence. But already discussed above, the application for proving agreement to sell dt. 05.03.2018 by leading secondary evidence has already been allowed by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran and the proper remedy with he respondent/defendant no.1 was to file revision against order dt. 24.08.2023. In the present case, vide the present application, the plaintiffs/applicants are seeking permission to make good the deficient stamp duty on the document i.e. agreement to sell dated 05.03.2018, which has to be allowed."
5. The Judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar vs. M/s Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Limited, 1962 AIR (SC) 110 is relevant and para No.6 is reproduced as under:-
6. It is next contended that as the copy of the award in court was unstamped, no decree could have been passed thereon. The facts are that the arbitrator sent to each of the parties a copy of the award signed by him and a third copy also signed by him was sent to the court. The copy of the award which was sent to the Government would appear to have been insufficiently stamped. If that had been produced in court, it could have been validated on 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:4:- payment of the deficiency and penalty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. But the Government has failed to produce the same. The copy of the award which was sent to the respondents is said to have been seized by the police along with other papers and is not now available. When the third copy was received in court, the respondents paid the requisite stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and had it validated. Now the contention of the appellant is that the instrument actually before the court is, what it purports to be, "a certified copy", and that under Section 35 of the Stamp Act there can be validation only of the original, when it is unstamped or insufficiently stamped, that the document in court which is a copy cannot be validated and "acted upon" and that in consequence no decree could be passed thereon. The law is no doubt well-settled that the copy of an instrument cannot be validated. That was held in Rajah of Bobbili v. Inuganti China Sitaramasami Garu, 26 Ind App 262, where it was observed:-
"The provisions of this section (section 35) which allow a document to be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty, have no application when the original document, which was unstamped or was insufficiently stamped, has not been produced; and, accordingly, secondary evidence of its contents cannot be given. To hold otherwise would be to add to the Act a provision which it does not contain. Payment of penalty will not render secondary evidence admissible, for under the stamp law penalty is leviable only on an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document actually produced in Court and that law does not provide for the levy of any penalty on lost documents"
Therefore, the question is whether the award which was sent by the arbitrator to the court is the original instrument or a copy thereof. There cannot, in our opinion, be any doubt that it is the original and not a copy of the award. What the arbitrator did was to prepare the award in triplicate, sign all of them and send one each to the party and the third to the Court. This would be an original instrument, and the words, "certified copy" appearing 4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:5:- thereon are a misdescription and cannot have the effect of altering the true character of the instrument. There is no substance in this contention of the appellant either. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed."
6. In the present case, the learned Court has allowed secondary evidence of the document to be led. Therefore permission to validate photostat copy of document was granted and the same position is covered by the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Vankata Rao(died) per LR & Another vs. M. Sheshagiri Rao & Others, 2009(4) CivCC 635, para No.6 of the judgment, which is relevant is reproduced as under:-
"6. Admittedly, the document, which is required to be sent for impounding, is a photocopy of the document and the original has not been produced before the Court below. Therefore, the same cannot be an instrument, which can be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. May be, the Court below has agreed to receive the said document as secondary evidence, but that does not mean that the same can be impounded. The Court below has rightly taken note of this fact and considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the petition by the impugned order. I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Court below, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed."
7. Now considering the fact that only a photocopy of the agreement was produced during the course of proceedings. However, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the only original document can be validated not a photocopy of the document. In cases, where parties are allowed to lead secondary evidence even then photocopy cannot be validated, so the impugned order suffers from material illegality. The learned Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in the Court, so the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:6:-
8. However, observations made herein above may not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the case. Same are purely confined to the present controversy and deliberations.
9. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands also disposed of."
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have thoroughly scrutinized the entire record, doing so with due regard to and benefit of the detailed and able assistance extended by them.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner's challenge is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not impugned the order dated Annexure P-5, and in the absence of such a challenge, the validity of Annexure P-6 alone cannot be questioned. Annexure P-5 pertains to an application filed by defendant No.1 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act seeking impounding of the agreement to sell dated 05.03.2018 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. The learned Civil Judge, however, held therein that only the original agreement to sell is capable of being impounded and that a photocopy of the document cannot be subjected to impounding.
4.1. Conversely, by the subsequent impugned order Annexure P-6, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to validate the photocopy of the agreement to sell on the condition that the petitioner deposits the deficient stamp duty along with a penalty quantified at ten times the sale consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no grievance against Annexure P-5, as the learned Civil Judge correctly held that a photocopy of a document cannot be impounded. His grievance is confined to Annexure P-6, which, according to him, is legally unsustainable.
6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:7:- He contends that once the Court had unequivocally held that a photocopy is incapable of being impounded, it could not thereafter have validated the same by directing payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. Thus, there was no necessity for the petitioner to challenge Annexure P-5, as it contains the correct legal position; the infirmity lies exclusively in Annexure P-6.
5. I have carefully heard learned counsel for both sides and meticulously examined the paper-book. Upon such consideration, I find substantial merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was not incumbent upon the petitioner to challenge Annexure P-5 in order to question the legality and propriety of Annexure P-6. In fact, the two orders operate on mutually inconsistent legal premises: while Annexure P-5 correctly holds that a photocopy of a document is incapable of being impounded, Annexure P-6 proceeds, in clear contradiction, to validate that very photocopy upon payment of deficient stamp duty and penalty. Thus, assailing Annexure P-6 alone is sufficient, as the inconsistency lies solely in the latter order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even a copy of the original document is capable of being validated for the purposes of the Stamp Act. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mattapalli Chelamayya and Another v. Mattapalli Venkataratnam and Another, (1972) 3 SCC 799, wherein the Apex Court enunciated the legal principle in the following terms:-
"13. Lastly it was contended that the award was inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It is true that the award in the original is not engrossed on a stamp paper. What the arbitrators
7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:8:- had done at the time of riling the award was to file the original award along with a true copy of it engrossed on a stamp of Rs. 2,865/-. It is not disputed that an instrument of this kind can be admitted in evidence after proper duty and penalty is paid. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the intention of the arbitrators in engrossing a copy of the award on the stamp paper and producing the same attached to the original award dt. 10-11-1955 was merely to show that the required stamp duty and penalty had been paid. It is not disputed that the actual and penalty required for the document and, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the award is admissible in evidence and cannot be rejected on the ground that the proper duty and penalty has not been paid."
7. In the aforesaid decision, the original award was very much before the arbitrator, and the objection related only to its admissibility on account of insufficient stamping. It was observed that the award had not initially been engrossed on the requisite stamp paper; however, the arbitrators subsequently engrossed a copy of the award on proper stamp paper. Thus, the case did not involve a situation where the original document was unavailable, nor did it concern the validation of a mere photocopy. Rather, the original award was duly validated through the act of engrossing its authenticated copy onto appropriate stamp paper, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that a mere copy of an instrument whether certified or otherwise cannot be validated for purposes of stamping. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the 8 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:9:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya, 2008 AIR (SC) 166, wherein the Apex Court categorically held as under:-
"5. It is an admitted fact that the photostat copy which is sought to be produced as secondary evidence does not show that on the original agreement proper stamp stamp duty was paid. The photostat copy of the agreement shows that the original agreement carried only a notarial stamp of Rs. 4/-. Thus the original instrument bears the stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. From the facts of the case, the issue which requires consideration is: Whether the court can impound the photocopy of the instrument (document) of improper description exercising its power under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ?. For answering this question, Sections 33 and 35 of the Act might render some help. Relevant extracts of the Sections are:
"33. Examination and impounding of instruments -
(1) Every person by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in (India) when such instrument was executed or first executed:
"35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any person having by law or consent of parties to receive evidence, or
9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:10:- shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
6. Section 33 gives power to the authority to check whether the instrument has been duly stamped and in case it is not duly stamped, to take steps to impound the same by proper stamp duty on the said document. This power can be exercised in regard to an 'instrument'.
Section 2(14) of the Act defines 'instrument' as:
"Instrument" includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or record."
7. The instrument as per definition under Section 2(14) has a reference to the original instrument. In State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 110, this Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment held as under :-
"6. It is next contended that as the copy of the award in court was unstamped, no decree could have been passed thereon. The facts are that the arbitrator sent to each of the parties a copy of the award signed by him and a third copy also signed by him was sent to the court. The copy of the award which was sent to the Government would appear to have been insufficiently stamped. If that had been produced in court, it could have been validated on payment of the deficiency and penalty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. But the Government has failed to produce the same. The copy of the award which was sent to the respondents is said to have been seized by the police along with other papers and is not now available. When the third copy was received in court, the respondents paid the requisite stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and had it validated. Now the contention of the appellant is that the instrument actually before the court is, what it purports to be, "a certified copy", and that under Section 35 of the Stamp Act there can be validation 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:11:- only of the original, when it is unstamped or insufficiently stamped, that the document in court which is a copy cannot be validated and "acted upon" and that in consequence no decree could be passed thereon. The law is no doubt well-settled that the copy of an instrument cannot be validated. That was held in Rajah of Bobbili v. Inuganti China Sitaramasami Garu, 26 Ind App 262, where it was observed:
[The provisions of this section (section 35) which allow a document to be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty, have no application when the original document, which was unstamped or was insufficiently stamped, has not been produced: and, accordingly, secondary evidence of its contents cannot be given) To hold otherwise would be to add to the Act a provision which it does not contain. Payment of penalty will not render secondary evidence admissible, for under the stamp law penalty is leviable only on an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document actually produced in Court and that law does not provide for the levy of any penalty on lost documents"
This Court had an occasion again to consider the scope and ambit of Sections 33(1), 35 and 36 of the Act and section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1070 and held that:-
"13. The first limb of Section 35 clearly shuts out from evidence any instrument chargeable with duty unless it is duly stamped. The second limb of it which relates to acting upon the instrument will obviously shut out any secondary evidence of such instrument, for allowing such evidence to be let in when the original admittedly chargeable with duty was not stamped or insufficiently stamped, would be tantamount to the document being acted upon by the person having by law or authority to receive evidence. Proviso (a) is only 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:12:- applicable when the original instrument is actually before the Court of law and the deficiency in stamp with penalty is paid by the party seeking to rely upon the document. Clearly secondary evidence either by way of oral evidence of the contents of the unstamped document or the copy of it covered by section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act would not fulfil the requirements of the proviso which enjoins upon the authority to receive nothing in evidence except the instrument itself Section 35 is not concerned with any copy of an instrument and a party can only be allowed to rely on a document which is an instrument for the purpose of Section 35. 'Instrument' is defined in Section 2(14) as including every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. There is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act.
14. If Section 35 only deals with original instruments and not copies (Section 36 cannot be so interpreted as to allow secondary evidence of an instrument to have its benefit. The words "an instrument" in Section 36 must have the same meaning as that in Section 35. The legislature only relented from the strict provisions of Section 35 in cases where the original instrument was admitted in evidence without objection at the initial stage of a suit or proceeding. In other words, although the objection is based on the insufficiency of the stamp affixed to the document, a party who has a right to object to the reception of it must do so when the document is first tendered. Once the time for raising objection to the admission of the documentary evidence is passed, no objection based on the same ground can be raised at a later stage. But this in no way extends the applicability of Section 36 to secondary evidence adduced or sought to be adduced in proof of the contents of a document which is unstamped or insufficiently stamped.
12 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:13:-
8. It is clear from the decisions of this Court and a plain reading of Sections 33, 35 and 2(14) of the Act that an instrument which is not duly stamped can be impounded and when the AL required fee and penalty has been paid for such instrument it can be taken in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is no scope for the inclusion of the copy of the document for the purposes of the Indian Stamp Act. Law is now no doubt well settled that copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899."
9. In the present matter, the original instrument is admittedly not available on the record. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to argue that one page of the original document is available while the remaining page is only a photocopy. However, even if a portion of the document exists in its original form, the instrument as a whole cannot thereby be deemed an original document. In such circumstances, the composite document must necessarily be treated as a copy, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a copy whether partial or complete cannot be validated for the purposes of stamping. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from a manifest and material illegality, as the learned Civil Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him under the law.
9.1. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed, and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 ::: CR-5769-2025 (O&M) -:14:-
10. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are not to be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. They are strictly confined to the limited issue arising for consideration in the present proceedings and shall have no bearing on the substantive adjudication of the case.
11. Since the principal matter has now been finally adjudicated and stands conclusively disposed of, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, which either arise from or are incidental to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required to be passed in relation thereto, as the determination of the main case has rendered such applications infructuous and devoid of any surviving cause for independent consideration.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
20.11.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:25:54 :::