HC overturns trial court order on plea to impound document

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a trial court's order in a civil suit, with Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey's Single Bench ruling the decision legally untenable. The High Court directed a fresh decision on the petitioners' application for document impounding.
The case, which was before the First Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari, concerns an order challenged from Aug 23, 2017, that dismissed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for document impounding. The matter highlights the conflict between substantive justice and procedural requirements.
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking title declaration and possession based on a registered sale deed dated Jan 30, 2002, along with requests for a permanent injunction and Rs 23,000 in damages. They referenced a partition agreement and documents from 1966 and 1973, seeking to impound two unregistered documents from March 12, 1966, citing insufficient stamp duty.
In 2010, the trial court sought an assessment of the applicable stamp duty from the Collector (Stamps). The Collector declined to take action under Section 48B of the Indian Stamp Act, citing the five-year limitation. Subsequently, in 2016, the plaintiffs filed a fresh application under Section 151 CPC.
The trial court rejected this application, citing delays and the Collector's previous refusal. The central legal question is the trial court's authority to impound documents under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, despite the Collector's Section 48B refusal.
Somnath Verma, representing the petitioners, argued that Section 33 powers operate independently of Section 48B, without prescribed time limits. He cited "Black Pearl Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Planet M Retail Ltd, emphasizing mandatory examination requirements.
P R Patankar, representing the respondents, defended the rejection based on the three-year delay and procedural completion following the Collector's refusal.
The High Court noted that Section 33 requires courts to examine and impound inadequately stamped instruments regardless of timing. The Collector's Section 48B refusal does not negate the court's Section 33 obligations.
The trial court's focus on technical delays rather than stamp duty adequacy misplaced procedural concerns over substantive justice. The Supreme Court's Black Pearl Hotels ruling confirmed the mandatory examination of insufficient stamping.
The High Court concluded that rejecting the impounding application on technical grounds undermined justice. Courts must fulfil their legal obligations, particularly regarding document scrutiny affecting title and possession matters. Permitting inadequately stamped documents to avoid examination compromises judicial standards and fiscal regulations.