Kolhapur Dist. Bakers' Co-Op. Society Ltd., v. Ramdev Sadashivrao Shinde

Bombay HC27 Jul 2012WP/4406/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a rejection of a review application, the single judge held there was no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere. The court found the plea that the document was never intended to be used as an afterthought and rejected the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; rule discharged with no order as to costs.

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit filed against the respondent. The suit was for possession. It appears that in the suit, an application was made by the petitioner for production of certain documents. Out of the said documents, one document was a rent note. On 13th March 1995, on the application made for seeking production of documents, the learned Judge passed an order impounding the said document. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court. The said order was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to decide the prayer made in the application dated 22nd October 1993 and thereafter come to the conclusion whether the document in question was properly stamped. An application was made by the defendantrespondent at

Exh.68 praying that the said Rent Note may not be admitted in evidence as it was not properly stamped. The said application was contested by the petitioner. By order dated 22nd February 1996 passed below the Application at Exh.68, the learned Judge impounded the said document and directed the petitioner to pay necessary stamp duty together with penalty equivalent to 10 times the amount of the deficit stamp duty. After the said order was passed, a sum of Rs.8410/ was paid by the petitioner by way of stamp duty. A further application was made at Exhibit102 seeking a direction to deposit balance amount of Rs.41,145/. On 21st June 1997, the said application at Exh.102 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the additional amount.

2Subsequently, there was a compromise between the parties which was filed in the suit. The application purporting to be an application for review was made by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner never relied upon the said document. It was pointed out that a sum of Rs.8410/ was paid by the petitioner. A prayer was made for review of the order below Exhibits 68 and 102 and for refund of Rs.8410/. By the impugned order, the said application for review was rejected.

that mere production of document was not sufficient for the Trial Court to exercise the power under section 34 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1958. He submitted that in any event, the said document could never have been tendered in evidence as the suit was compromised. He submitted that even assuming that the order of impounding the document was legal, the quantum of deficit stamp duty could have been decided only by the Authorities under the said Act and not by the Civil Court. He submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application for review.

4I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the application for review shows that perhaps the only real ground pleaded is that the document was never referred to in the evidence and as the document was not intended to be relied upon by the petitioner, there was no occasion to impound the said document. There is no ground taken that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine as to what should be the deficit stamp duty payable and what should the penalty levied. It must be noted here that on 13th March 1995, the order of impounding of document was passed. The said order came to be challenged by filing a writ petition by the petitioner. Perusal of the order of this Court shows that no specific contention was raised that the petitioner never intended to rely upon the said document in evidence. While replying to the application at Exh.68 made by the respondent, the only contention raised by the petitioner as noted in

paragraph 3 of the order dated 22nd February 1996 is that the document does not create a demise or transfer in favour of defendant and it is merely an agreement for which no stamp duty was payable. Therefore, for the first time in the review application, the petitioner tried to contend that the document could not have been impounded as the petitioner never intended to rely upon the said document. This was obviously an afterthought.

5In the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge was right in holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and even otherwise also there was no ground for review. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

Kolhapur Dist. Bakers' Co-Op. Society Ltd., v. Ramdev Sadashivrao Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolhapur Dist. Bakers' Co-Op. Society Ltd., v. Ramdev Sadashivrao Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Raghunath Sayaji Sabale Vs Smt.Bhamabai Sadashiv Sabale and Others

Gahininath Saheb Lande and Anr. Vs Shahaji Shivaji Agawane

Shri Raghunath Sayaji Sabale Vs Smt.Bhamabai Sadashiv Sabale and Others

Parvatibai Maruti Patil and Others. Vs Krishna Daji Patil and Others.

Govind Ramji Patil and Ors. Vs Parvati Maruti Patil and Ors.

Parvatibai Maruti Patil and Others. Vs Krishna Daji Patil and Others.