JUDGMENT :

1. This Original Petition has been filed against the order in I.A.508/2013 dated 22.03.2013 in O.S.245/2011 on the file of second Addl.Sub Court, Ernakulam which was filed to Review the order dated 15.01.2013, for deleting the penalty which was ordered to be calculated and paid. This is the second round of litigation before this Court in connection with impounding of the lease deed and directing to pay the stamp duty and penalty in the said case.

2. Earlier O.P.(C)No.3880/2011 was disposed by this Court as per the judgment dated 28.11.2012, copy of which is produced as Exhibit P6. As per that order, this Court dismissed the Original Petition upholding the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sub Judge impounding the lease deed and directing the same to be forwarded to the District Collector.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after passing that order, at the request of the petitioners, the matter was posted as “spoken to” on the very next day and paragraph No.4 was added subsequent to that. In paragraph No.4 of Exhibit P6 this Court observed that nothing in the judgment will preclude the petitioners from moving the court below again to validate the document by recourse to Section 34(a) of the Act and the dictum in State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Ltd [1962 KHC 430 (SC)].

4. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that in spite of the specific direction of this Court, the Additional Sub Judge failed to comply the directions in paragraph No.4 of Ext.P6 judgment and hence they came up before this Court again.

5. Notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent appeared through counsel. Heard both sides.

6. Though there was an argument from the side of the petitioners that the impounded document is not the original and is only a counter-part and the original is actually with the respondent Bank, the contentions so advanced is no longer available to the petitioners in view of the findings of this Court in paragraph No.2 in Ext.P6 judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“..... The fact that the petitioners are the lessors who would normally retain the original of the lease deed would raise a strong presumption that the one produced by them in court has to be treated as the original.”

7. That is the reason why this court categorically found that there is no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Original Petition was dismissed. Exhibit.P6 judgment of this court is not further challenged by the petitioner and it has become final. The learned counsel for the respondent in this context would take my attention to clause 31 of Ext.P1 lease deed. He would also drew my attention to paragraph No.6 of Ext.P5, the original proceedings by which Ext.P1 was impounded which reads thus :

“In clause 31 of Ext.A1, it is stated that two originals are executed, one in stamp paper No.52305 and another in stamp paper No.52306. It further states that the agreement prepared using stamp paper No.52305 shall be retained by the licensor (plaintiffs) and the one executed in stamp paper No.52306 shall be retained by the licensee (defendant). Ext.A1 is the one prepared in stamp paper No.52306, to be kept by the defendant. However, it is produced by the plaintiffs.”

8. So it has been found in Ext.P5 proceedings that Ext.A1 is the one prepared in stamp paper No.52306. Though it is recited in paragraph No.31 of the lease deed that it has to be kept by the defendant, it has been produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Hence the petitioners can not be heard to contend that the lease deed produced by them is not the original and only a counter part. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the lease deed produced by them is a counter part and hence the petitioners are entitled for the protection under Section 7 of the Kerala Stamp Act (here in after be referred as the Act)which require them to p