LAWS(GJH)-1965-6-8

NARANLAL MOHANLAL PURANI Vs. AZAMKHAN AHMEDKHAN

Decided On June 22, 1965
NARANLAL MOHANLAL PURANI Appellant
V/S
AZAMKHAN AHMEDKHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Application is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff in 1962 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Civil Suit No. 867 of 1962 of that Court. At the trial of that suit a document Ex. 4/1 was tendered as an exhibit and the learned Judge trying the suit came to the conclusion that it was insufficiently stamped. He therefore assessed the deficit at Rs. 88-50 and he also assessed the penalty at Rs. 885.00. The total amount according to the learned Judge therefore came to Rs. 973-50 and the learned Judge then passed the following order :-

(2.) It is against this order of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff has filed this Revision Application.

(3.) The order passed by the learned Judge in the City Civil Court was clearly defective inasmuch as the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to insist that the penalty should be paid or that it should be paid within a particular period. Under sec. 34 proviso (a) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he had the power to admit a particular document in evidence on payment of the duty together with the penalty payable thereon; but he was also bound under sec. 33 of the Act to impound the document and then under sec. 37 send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument together with the certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof and had to send such amount to the Collector or to such person as the Collector may appoint in this behalf. Instead of adopting the procedure which is clearly referred to in sec. 34 proviso (a) and sec. 37(1) of the Act the learned Judge has passed the order directing the impounding and the payment of penalty without passing the appropriate order under sec. 34 proviso (a). As I have mentioned earlier the only order that the learned Judge could have passed was to admit the document on record subject to the deposit of stamp duty and penalty.