(1.) This is a revision application directed against an order of Sri A.S. Srivastava, Civil Judge, Gorakhpur impounding a document under Section 33 of Stamp Act.
(2.) The applicant was the defendant in a case pending before the said Court. In that case the applicant filed a document. The Inspector of Stamps made a report that the document was insufficiently stamped, as the document embodied an agreement of partnership. This matter was contested by the applicant; and it was argued before the Court on behalf of the applicant that the document was not an agreement of partnership, but that it was merely a record of a past transaction of partnership, which was termed on his behalf as a memorandum of partnership. The Court went into the arguments of the parties, and decided in favour of the contention advanced on behalf of the Inspector of Stamps. In the alternative, it was argued on behalf of the defendant that the Court could not impound it under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, as the document was not produced before the Court. This contention was also rejected by the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant has filed this revision application.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant we are of opinion that there is no substance in this petition. The first contention of the learned counsel is that the document in question did not embody an agreement of partnership. This question related te the interpretation of the document. If the document itself was capable of both the interpretations then it was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Court to put any interpretation that it considered reasonable on the document in question. This point, therefore, does not raise any question of jurisdiction, and the revision application would not lie on this ground.