' Abdul Saboor petitioner-plaintiff instituted his suit against Abdul Aziz respondent-defendant for the specific performance of agreement of sale with respect to the suit plot fully described in the plaint. The suit was initially contested. However, on 10-1-1994 learned counsel for the respondent- defendant made the conceding statement that the suit may be decreed in consideration for an amount of Rs,5,85,000. Consequently, on 10-1-1994 a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale in the sum of Rs,5,85,000 was passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and against the respondent-defendant. The petitioner/decree-holder was directed 'to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs,5,85,000 till 25-2-1994 failing which the suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed. It was further ordered that Abdul Aziz respondent-defendant would be entitled to recover/receive the aforesaid deposited amount of Rs,5,85,000 after the registration of the sale- deed.
2. The aforesaid amount has been deposited by the decreeholder/petitioner. Expressing that the petitioner/decree-holder was not willing to get registered the sale-deed, Abdul Aziz respondent- defendant filed the application before the trial Court that plaintiff may be directed to deposit the non-judicial stamp paper so that the sale-deed is got registered. This application was resisted by the petitioner-plaintiff who contended that the trial Court had become functus officio and the application was not maintainable which could not be heard. It was maintained that he respondent/judgment-debtor was asked to deposit the required stamp paper through the despatch of notice dated 4-6-1994 who had failed to act upon the same and thus was not entitled to recover the consideration amount before the registration of the sale-deed. After hearing the parties the trial Court accepted the application filed by the respondent by holding that unless otherwise agreed expressly the liability of paying the stamp in respect of transaction of sale lies upon the buyer who has to get the document of sale registered and obviously in the instant matter he is none else than the petitioner-plaintiff/decree-holder. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision petition which has been resisted by the respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff referred to the amendment in section 29(c) of the Stamp Act, 1899 through the Punjab Finance Act No,VI, 1992 (PLD 1992 Punjab Statutes 103) according to which in the absence of any agreement the stamp duty shall be borne by the guarantee and the guarantor in equal shares. He continued that the trial Court passed the consent decree on 10-1- 1994 and that the petitioner-plaintiff is not liable to pay whole of the stamp duty in view of the absence of any contract in the matter. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent laid the emphasis that on the basis of the ruling published as M/s. Sargodha Industrial Urban Development Cooperative Society Limited (1995 CLC 813/Lahore/Full Bench 7), decided on 4-12-1994 the buyer/purchaser is liable to bear the expenses of the sale-deed. Admittedly there is no agreement between the parties as to who would bear the expenses of non-judicial stamp paper and the registration of the sale-deed. I have gone through the aforesaid case-law where in the incorporation amendment in section 29(c) of the Stamp Act, 1899 through the Punjab Finance Act No, VI, 1992 has not been considered. In view of the aforesaid statutory amendment and provision in section 29(c) of the Stamp Act, 1899 in the absence of any agreement, the stamp duty shall be borne by the guarantee and the guarantor in equal shares. Thus I have no option but to hold that the stamp duty shall be borne in equal shares by the petitioner and the respondent. However, the remaining expenses about the registration of the sale-deed shall be the liability of the petitioner which shall be borne by him and to this extent no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
4. Thus this revision petition is partly accepted and disposed of by holding that due to the absence of any agreement, only the stamp duty shall be borne by the guarantee (petitioner) and the guarantor (respondent) in equal shares. However, the remaining expenses of the registration shall be borne by the petitioner.