ANANDA CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. KSHYAMAMAYEE PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in a pending suit has filed this revision under following circumstances : Plaintiff-opposite party has filed Title Suit No. 270/95 for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, permanent injunction, eviction and other ancillary reliefs. In course of trial of the suit, a document has been admitted into evidence on the side of the defendant as Ext.-A. At the time of admitting the aforesaid document as Ext.A, no objection had been raised by the plaintiff regarding its dmissibility on the ground that the document had been insufficiently stamped. Subsequently, after evidence was closed on both sides, the Trial Court posted the suit to 17-7-1999 for hearing of arguments from both sides. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application for impounding the document marked Ext. A on the ground that it had been insufficiently stamped and for a direction regarding realisation of proper fees from the defendant. Objection was filed immediately. The Trial Court passed an order allowing the petition of the plaintiff and subsequently directed the defendant to pay stamp duty of Rs.3,094/- on Ext.A by the next day, that is to say by 30-6-1999. Subsequently, on 30-6-1999, the defendant filed a petition for recalling the order dated 29-6-1999. The said petition was rejected on 30-6-1999 and the Trial Court directed that necessary stamp duty should be paid by 1-7-1999 failing which the document would be impounded. On1-7-1999, the defendant filed an application praying for time to obtain stay order from the High Court. The said petition was taken up on 2 7-1999. The Trial Court impounded the document by observing that necessary stamp duty had not been paid. The matter was directed to be posted on 17-7-1999 to which date the suit had already been posted for hearing argument. On 17-7-1999, 'the defendant filed several applications, inter alia, for recalling the orders dated 29-6-1999, 30-6-1999 and 2-7-1999. All the petitions were rejected and the Trial Court proceeded to hear arguments from the side of the plaintiff, but the Counsel for defendant though present, did not advance any argument presumably because the defendant wanted to file revision in the High Court. Thereafter, the present Civil Revision has been filed challenging the orders dated 29-6-1999, 30-6-1999/2-7-1999 and 17-7-1999.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection relating to maintainability of one Civil Revision against several orders passed by the Trial Court. Though ordinarily, separate Civil Revision is to be filed against each impugned order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, such preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for opposite party is to be overruled. It is apparent from the narration of events that the subsequent orders passed on 30-6-1999, 2-7-1999 and 17-7-1999 are only consequential orders based upon the primary order dated 29-6-1999 whereunder the defendant was called upon to pay the stamp duty on. Ext.A. If the first order is found to be unsustainable, the other orders being consequential in nature can be set aside in exercise of the suo motu power of the High Court even though separate revisions have not been filed challenging such subsequent orders.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once Ext.A was admitted into evidence without any objection being raised relating to insufficiency of stamp, at subsequent stage of the suit, the said question could not have been raised either by the other side or by the Trial Court itself. For the aforesaid purpose, the Counsel has placed reliance upon Sections 36 and 61 of the Indian Stamp Act,