Stamp – Improperly stamped document – Evidentiary Value: Stamp Act, 1899 section 35

Before the trial Court the plaintiff filed paper no. 92-C under Order 13, Rule 3 C.P.C. with a prayer that the alleged agreement for sale filed by the defendant in suit is neither properly stamped nor is it a registered document therefore, the document cannot be admitted in evidence. The application was opposed by the defendant. The learned trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiff-petitioner and dismissed the application 92-C by order dated 22-10-2012, which was assailed by the plaintiff before the District Judge in revision.

The learned revisional Court also did not find favour with the plaintiff and dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged document (paper no. 30-A), which was filed by the defendant before the trial Court is neither duly stamped nor the same is a registered document, therefore, such a document would not be admissible for collateral purpose. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra [AIR, 2009, Supreme Court, 1489. In the case at hand, the alleged document (paper no. 030-A) is undisputedly not properly stamped. Moreover, since the learned trial Court in the impugned order has held that the document can be read in evidence for collateral purpose even without properly stamped, the Court was of the view that the approach of the learned trial Court is not proper and this finding is clearly perverse.

The impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as well as the order passed by the revisional Court are liable to be set aside in view of the Apex Court verdict in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra) and it is held that if the document is under-stamped that cannot be read in evidence for collateral purpose.