GEORGE Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this original petition was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 27 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is asked to pay Rs. 8283/- by way of stamp duty and penalty as per Ext. R1 communication of the 2nd respondent District Collector, Kottayam. The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether after admitting an instrument in evidence the Civil Court can impound the same and request the District Collector to collect the stamp duty and penalty imposed upon the same.

(2.) The petitioner filed the above suit for a declaration that he is the owner of the lorry K. L. E. 1351 and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. The suit was decreed Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed. It seems a second appeal is pending before this Court In the above suit the defendant produced before the 1st respondent one sale letter written by the original owner of the lorry in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner was examined, the defendant got it marked as Ext. B1. The court allowed it to be marked and accepted it in evidence without any objection. From Ext. P1 B-diary produced along with the original petition it is seen that on 19-7-1972 Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 to B7 were marked. The suit was decreed on 8-9-1972. According to the petitioner, long after that the petitioner received Ext. P2 order from the 2nd respondent directing him to remit Rs. 750/- as stamp duty and Rs. 7500/- as penalty on the unstamped sale letter marked as Ext. B1. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent against Ext. P2. In the above representation the petitioner stated that he was not aware of the orders passed by the court levying the stamp duty and penalty. As a result of the enquiries made by the petitioner he came to know that though the instrument in question was marked on 19-7-1972, the impounding was made by the court only on 7-8-1972 and that too without giving the parties to the suit any opportunity of being heard. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the 1st respondent on 7-8-1972 reads:

(3.) On behalf of the 2nd respondent District Collector a counter affidavit has been filed and the statement in Para.3 of the counter affidavit is that the impounding in question was made on 8-2-1972. I am at a loss to understand how having impounded the instrument on 8-2-1972 the Subordinate Judge allowed it to be marked on 19-2-1972 without the payment of the stamp duty and the penalty levied. Along with the counter affidavit a letter dated 6-10-1972 from the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent forwarding the instrument in question for the realisation of stamp duty and penalty is produced as Ext. R1. Ext. R2 is a communication rejecting the representation made by the petitioner against Ext. P2.