SHANTILAL DAGDULAL NAVLAKHAversusANIL BANDOPANT CHILLAL AND ANR

                                                                         19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 7493 OF 2005

                   Shantilal Dagdulal Navlakha                                ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                   Anil Bandopant Chillal And Anr.                            ...Respondents

                                                    ****
                   Mr. P.B. Shah a/w Ms. Gunjan Shah and Mr. Varchasva Pandey for the
                   Petitioner.
                   None for Respondent No.1.
                   Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for Respondent No.2/State.
                                                    ****
                                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
SNEHA                                          DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
NITIN
CHAVAN             P.C. :
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.09.28
18:44:37 +0530     1.             Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner
                   is challenging order dated 20.07.2005 passed below Exh. 35/142 by the
                   Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1892 of
                   1997. By the said impugned order, the document of lease dated
                   16.04.1994 is impounded and the Petitioner is directed to pay deficit
                   stamp duty and penalty, as calculated under the said order.


                   2.             The Petitioner is Plaintiff in the said suit filed against
                   Respondent No.1 / sole Defendant. The said suit is filed for direction to
                   the Respondent No.1 to register lease deed dated 16.04.1994 which is
                   executed for a period of 99 years. The Petitioner has sought declaration
                   that it is binding upon Respondent No.1 to register lease deed dated
                   16.04.1994 which is a lease for 99 years in favour of the Petitioner. A
                   prayer is made that if Respondent No.1 does not register the lease deed,
                   then the same be registered through the Court Commissioner. Further
                   prayer for damages/compensation is also made. A declaration is also


                   Sneha Chavan                                                                  1
                                                   19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc



sought that Respondent No.1 is not entitled to disturb the Petitioner’s
possession and perpetual injunction protecting Petitioner’s possession, is
also prayed.


3.             Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Shah submitted that
the Application Exh. 142 was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff with a
prayer to call for ‘report from the stamping authority’ and showing
willingness that the Petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of stamp
duty as per Rules in the Court. He submitted that the Court was never
called upon to calculate the amount of stamp-duty and penalty. He
submitted that the impugned order interpreting the document of lease
as a conveyance under Article 25 of the The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is
perverse.


4.             Record shows that on 27.10.2005, when notices were issued,
the effect and operation of impugned order was stayed on condition
that the Petitioner deposits deficit stamp-duty and 50% of the penalty
within a period of 2 weeks in the Trial Court. The Petitioner has filed
an affidavit, placing on record a receipt showing that the amount is
deposited by the Petitioner in the Trial Court on 08.11.2005. Petitioner
has filed such affidavit pursuant to order passed by this Court.


5.             On 30.11.2009, the petition was admitted and ad-interim
order was continued until further orders. It was clarified that pendency
of the petition shall not operate as stay to further proceedings before
the Trial Court. Even then, learned Counsel for the Petitioner informed,
on instructions that the said suit is still pending and not decided by the
Trial Court. Statement is accepted.




Sneha Chavan                                                               2
                                                     19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc



6.             As per the office note, Rule notice is duly served upon the
Respondent No.1 i.e. sole Defendant. However, nobody appeared for
Respondent No.1 despite due service.


7.             Learned AGP has submitted that aspect of proper stamp duty
and penalty, if any, be kept open for decision in accordance with law.


8.             I have considered the submissions and perused the impugned
order.


9.             It appears that the learned Trial Judge has calculated the
deficit stamp duty as well as penalty amount, even when the Court was
not called upon to do so. The application filed by the Petitioner merely
prayed for ‘calling a report from the Stamp Authority’ and placing on
record willingness of the Petitioner to deposit the amount in Court.


10.            As per application Exh. 142, after the oral evidence was over
and when the suit was to be heard, according to the Petitioner/Plaintiff,
the Defendant was adopting delaying tactics, such as raising objection
about stamp duty and therefore, as a ‘without-prejudice gesture’, the
application was filed praying for report from concerned stamp authority
and placing on record willingness to deposit the amount in the Court.


11.            From the prayers made in the plaint, apparently the suit is in
the nature of specific performance, seeking direction to the Defendant
to    register the lease deed and for getting the document registered
through Court process in case the Defendant fails to honour the
promise. Other prayers about injunction and compensation are also
made.


Sneha Chavan                                                                 3
                                                     19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc



12.            From the impugned order, it is seen that the Advocate for the
Petitioner/Plaintiff had submitted that for the purpose of determining
stamp duty and penalty, the document is to be referred to the Collector
of Stamps.


13.            Learned Trial Judge has however referred to Articles 25 and
26 of the The Bombay Stamp Act and has foreclosed the issue about
applicable stamp-duty and penalty, when it was neither the purport nor
the scope of the application.


14.            Nonetheless, since the main prayer in the suit is for direction
to the Defendant to register the lease deed, the aspect of applicable
stamp duty and penalty will have to be considered by the appropriate
stamping authority and to that extent, rival contentions of the parties
will have to be kept open.


15.            The suit has remained pending for a long time and therefore,
it is necessary that the suit is decided on merits as soon as possible.


16.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, over all it appears that the impugned order is passed
perversely, without being called upon and without there been an
occasion for deciding the stamp-duty and penalty. Hence, interference is
required.


17.            The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of and the Rule is made
partly absolute by passing following order :
               (i)      The impugned order dated 20.07.2005 is quashed
               and set aside.


Sneha Chavan                                                                 4
                                                       19-WP-7493-2005 @.doc



               (ii)      Learned Trial Judge hearing the said suit, is directed
               to decide the suit in accordance with law expeditiously within
               a period of 9 months from receipt of this order. Parties are
               directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for early disposal.
               (iii)     All contentions of both sides in respect of applicable
               stamp duty and penalty, if any, as applicable on date of the
               lease deed, are kept open and to be decided in accordance
               with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion in that
               regard.
               (iv)      The amount deposited by the Petitioner in the Trial
               Court shall continue to be deposited, subject to final outcome
               of the suit.


18.            All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.


                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                   5