SAVITHRAMMA R.C. Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No. 1 has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court declining to impound and levy duty and penalty on three documents which are alleged to be insufficiently stamped.

(2.) The plaintiff-Vijaya Bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants. Defendants filed the written statement and contested the claim. Issues were framed. The case was posted for evidence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff examined PW1. Through him, they got the documents marked. Ex.P6 is a declaration and indemnity executed by defendants, Ex.P7 letter evidencing deposit of title deeds and Ex.P9 letter of guarantee. As PW1 was not crossexamined by the defendants, his evidence was closed.

(3.) The trial Court is right to the extent that, once the document is marked without objection, no subsequent objection regarding its marking can be gone into and such document will have to be looked into while deciding the case on merits. This, however, does come in the way of the court discharging the statutory duty contemplated under Sec. 33 of the Act. Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which deals with Examination and impounding of instruments reads as under: