L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT filed O. S. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, nalgonda to recover certain amount from the petitioner. The trial of the suit is yet to commence.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed I. A. No. 516 of 2003 under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code of civil Procedure (for short the Code ) for impounding the document. According to him, the document is only a bond insufficiently stamped and not a promissory note. The petitioner resisted the application stating that the document answers the description of the promissory note and the question of collecting deficit stamp duty thereon does not arise. The trial Court passed an order, dated 04-07-2003, treating the document as a bond/promissory note and permitted it to be impounded. The petitioner challenges the same.

( 3 ) SRI M. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable, since Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code does not deal with the impounding of document for collection of deficit stamp duty. According to him, the word "impounding" employed in Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code was misunderstood and the trial Court had considered the application without verifying the implications. It is his further case that the trial Court recorded a finding without undertaking any discussion and the same is untenable.

( 4 ) SRI A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that reference to order 13 Rule 8 of the Code was a mistake. According to him, this mistake is not fatal, inasmuch as the petitioner was clear in his application and the prayer, as is evident from the affidavit itself. He further submits that impounding of a document for the purpose of collection of deficit stamp duty is a matter between the Court and the person, who intends to rely upon the document and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court failed to maintain the distinction between the impounding of a document for the purpose of collecting deficit Court fee on the one hand, and the impounding for the purpose of safe custody provided for under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code is correct. A reading of the affidavit filed by the respondent in I. A. No. 516 of 2003 discloses that he wanted the document to be treated as a bond and not as a promissory note and he accordingly prayed for impounding of the document, dated 7-12-1998, after deciding its nature. Therefore, subject matter of interlocutory application was determination of the nature and permissibility of the impounding of the document, for collection of deficit Court fee. The respondent filed the application under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code. The said provision reads as under: court may order any document to be impounded:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 5 or Rule 7 of this Order or in Rule 17 of Order 7, the Court may, if it sees sufficient cause, direct any document or book produced before it in any suit to be impounded and kept in the custody of an Officer of the court, for such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit.

( 6 ) A reading of Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code discloses that the word "impounding" referred to therein is in the context of safe custody and has nothing to do either with the determination of the nature of the document or the collection of deficit Court fee thereon. Inasmuch as the term impounding is used in both the context, the respondent appears to have taken one provision for the other and the trial Court, obviously under pressure of work did not take this aspect into account. The parameters for passing an order Under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Code are totally different from those relating to determination of nature of document or collection of deficit stamp duty. Under this Rule, the Court has to consider as to how far the parties can be permitted to submit only a copy of document as distinguished

Click Here to Read the rest of this document