IN RE: NARAYANDAS NATHURAM MARWADI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision raises an unusual point. The applicant was not a party to the suit which has given rise to the revision. He was a witness and was summoned to produce a certain document which was in his possession. This document was bound up by him in a book called a bahi with a number of other documents which had nothing to do with the case we are considering. Instead of detaching the relevant document from the book, the applicant produced the whole book. The lower Court, on glancing through the book, noticed that certain other documents, wholly irrelevant to the case before it and which the witness had not been asked to produce, were, in the opinion of the learned Judge, insufficiently stamped. These documents were accordingly impounded and the following order was passed: Agent of Narayan had filed one book containing several agreements. They are impounded and the same be sent to Collector for recovery of stamp duty and penalty.

(2.) THE applicant comes up in revision against this order. According to him the lower Court had no power to impound these documents and its order was wholly without jurisdiction. No one was joined as a non-applicant to the petition for revision and according to the applicant no opposite party is necessary because he is the only person aggrieved and the only person who can be affected by the order of this Court. Gruer J., thought however that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for Central Provinces and Berar should be asked whether he desired to be heard, especially as the documents are now apparently in the hands of the Collector. This authority has appeared through the learned Advocate. General and contends that the High Court has no power to add him as a party and contends that the High Court has no jurisdiction whatever over him or over the Collector in this matter. In this I think he is right.

(3.) THE only sections in the Stamp Act which confer jurisdiction on the High Court are Sections 57 to 60. Section 57 empowers the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. Sections 58 and 59 regulate the procedure of the High Court when hearing such a reference and confer on it certain powers. Section 60 entitles certain Courts to state a case-in the same way. Neither the lower Court nor the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has moved in the matter here; neither has stated a case; and so I have no jurisdiction to act under these sections. I would not have jurisdiction sitting alone any way because the decision has to be given by a bench of not less than three Judges (Section 57(2)). My only jurisdiction, if I. have any at all, is under Section 115, Civil P.C., and that does not enable me to call in question the action either of the Collector or the Chief Control-ling Revenue Authority. I agree therefore that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cannot be joined and so discharge him. The learned Advocate-General does not press for costs, and in any event I would not have awarded them because the applicant did not ask for or want this joinder and notices were issued at the instance of Gruer J. who felt that this authority should be afforded the opportunity of being heard should he so desire.