JOSEPH VILANGADAN, COCHIN Vs. AASMA TECHNO PRODUCTSPRIVATE LIMITED, COCHIN, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P5 order passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 4206/11 in O.S. No. 584/11 is challenged in this Original Petition.Petitioner is the defendant in the above suit, which was filed by the respondent for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. Ext. Pl is copy of the plaint in the suit. Petitioner/defendant, on entering appearance, filed Ext.P2 statement raising a preliminary objection that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the agreement entered by the parties contained an arbitration clause to resolve the disputes raised in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant is the owner of the building and premises, which have been let out under a lease agreement to the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was laid canvassing a decree of prohibitory injunction to restrain the owner/landlord from causing any obstruction to the respondent/lessee from constructing a latrine cum bath room and also installing of diesel generator in the premises. The lease arrangement which provided a term of 11 months has already expired and, at best, the tenancy enjoyed by the plaintiff was one of holding over and in view of the arbitration clause under the agreement entered between the parties disputes, if any, between them over the leased premises are to be resolved by way of arbitration was, in short, the objections raised by the respondent/defendant filing Ext. P2 preliminary statement canvassing for orders under S.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short The Act")- Petitioner also filed a separate application to dismiss the suit and refer the parties to arbitration in view of the existence of the arbitration agreement, as under S. 8 of the Act Ext. P3 is the copy of that petition. Plaintiff, thereupon, moved Ext. P4 application to direct the defendant/owner to produce the original of the lease agreement, though both parties had produced copies of the lease agreement. In the light of Ext.P4 application moved by the petitioner, the Court ordered production of the original by the defendant, and in compliance thereof, the original lease agreement was produced.

(2.) After examining the original lease agreement taking note that it has not been properly and sufficiently stamped, the Court found that a stamp duty and penalty of ' 5,43,000/- is due for validating that document, and the plaintiff was directed to pay such sum within the time fixed. Since such payment was not made, the document was ordered to be impounded and sent over to the District Collector for realisation of the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Propriety, legality and correctness of Ext. P5 order is challenged in this Original Petition.

(3.) I heard the counsel on both sides.