Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. His submission is, only when plaintiff wants to introduce or tender a document in evidence which is not duly stamped as required under the Stamp Act, the Court can direct the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable and till then it could only order for impounding of such document. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.5870/2008 disposed of on 04.11.2008 in the case of Sri Shanath Kumar V.V. vs. Shri Manik Satwajirao Jathar. He further submits that eventhough the trial Court has got discretionary power to levy lesser penalty on the deficit stamp duty payable, it has committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.9 filed by the plaintiff for re- consideration of the penalty calculated by the office at ten times on the deficit stamp duty payable. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.

9. As seen from the order sheet of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has neither tendered the original sale deed dated 28.09.2001 which according to the plaintiff is an agreement of sale and according to the defendant is a sale deed in evidence nor made an attempt to mark the same as exhibit, if that is so, the trial Court could have only ordered for impounding the document and it could not have directed the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable on it.

10. It is only when the plaintiff wants to introduce such document or tenders it in evidence, the Court can direct the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable and report the same.

11. It is also made clear, as and when plaintiff wants to introduce such document in evidence, the Court has no discretion but to direct the office to calculate the deficit stamp duty payable with ten times penalty as per proviso to Section 34 of the Stamp Act and only on payment of the said amount, it could permit the party to tender such document in evidence and thereafter, it shall forward an authenticated copy of the said document to the jurisdictional District Registrar for Stamps as required under Section 37(1) of the Act. If a party who is liable to pay stamp duty as directed the trial Court fails to make payment within the time stipulated by the Court for making such payment and decline to tender or introduce such document in evidence, in such case, the Court has to forward the original of such document to the District Registrar as required under Section 37(2) of the Act.

              a)    If     plaintiff   wants    to
     tender           or       introduce       the
     document dated 28.09.2001 in

evidence, he shall pay the deficit stamp duty as calculated by the office before commencing his evidence or within one month from the date of posting the case for evidence of the plaintiff.

b) If the trial is already commenced, then the plaintiff shall pay deficit stamp duty as calculated by the office on or before 30.6.2014 and it is only thereafter, the trial Court shall permit the plaintiff to introduce the document in evidence.