( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-1998, passed by the Ist Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bagalkot, on I. A. No. XI, filed in original suit number O. S. 74 of 1995. By I. A. XI, the plaintiff sought the direction against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 10 to pay the stamp duty and penalty, as provided under S. 34 of Indian Stamp Act, before its admission and recording of evidence.

( 2 ) THE objection was filed by the defendants contending that defendants are not enforcing the award, and they are using it as defence. Hence, there is no question of payment of stamp duty, and that the document at least can be admitted for collateral purpose of severance of status of the joint family. The trial Court considered the contentions, and held that the document, marked as Ex. D20, shows it requires the payment of stamp duty. The document is styled, as decision of the arbitrator, and certain shares had been allotted to the parties and the well, pump-set have been kept in common. The learned Civil Judge, opined that the document required payment of stamp duty, as an instrument of partition as provided under Art. 39 of the Stamp Act. The learned Civil Judge rejected the contentions of defendants, whether they are enforcing the award or relaying it for another purpose, that has got no relevance. That so far as payment of stamp duty is concerned, it opined that it cannot be admitted for any purpose without payment of stamp duty and penalty.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the defendants have come up in revision under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. I have heard Sri S. B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the revision-petition and Sri Krishna Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the Court below erred in directing the payment of stamp duty and penalty, and in holding that it should be paid. The learned counsel further contended that under S. 33, the provision is for examination of the document, as to whether this is properly stamped or not, and then impounding of the same has to be done and this procedure under S. 33, has not been followed, so no penalty could be imposed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further contended that, document had been marked, as Ex. D20, and once it had been marked as exhibit, the Court below could not go into the question of admissibility of the document, in view of S. 35, on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped, and therefore, the order in the present case suffers from irregularity and error of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further contended that, this document could be admitted for collateral purposes, and even without stamp duty or penalty being paid.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that, so far as document Ex. D1 is concerned, it is an award, there is no dispute and the same has not been made rule of the Court. Learned counsel contended that, it has been filed to show that by virtue of the award, the status of parties has changed. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner further contended that document can be looked into for collateral purposes, even without payment of stamp duty. These contentions raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner have hotly been contested. It had been contended that, jurisdiction of this Court under S. 115, C. P. C. is limited, and is confined to jurisdictional error, firstly and thereafter, to examine that if the order impugned is allowed to stand, is it going to cause any injustice to the revision-petitioner. If it is not shown, then this Court need not interfere. It has further been contended that, S. 34 of the Stamp Act, bars and provides that, a document not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose, so when the document in question Ex. D20, was not properly executed or properly stamped, it could not be looked for collateral purposes, as has been laid down by their Lordships in the case of Ram Rattan v. Parmanand, AIR 1946