Insufficiently stamped document coming into Court under process of law.

Mr. N.S. Srinivasan appearing for the learned Government Pleader raises a preliminary objection that section 115, Civil Procedure Code, will not apply to the present case. What happened was that when a document came into the possession of the Court below a question was raised as to whether it was properly stamped. On that arguments were heard by the Subordinate Judge who finding that the document had not been properly stamped impounded the same and sent it to the District Collector under section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. In doing so, the learned Judge did not give any definite finding as to the quantum of the stamp to be collected and left the decision on this matter to the Collector and if the Collector cannot decide that question, the Subordinate Judge suggested, that the matter might be referred to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, namely, the Revenue Board, for referring the matter to the High Court under section 57 of the Act. What is contended very strenuously by Mr. Srinivasan is that the action of the Subordinate Judge in impounding the document and forwarding the same to the Collector with an accompanying letter does not amount to a decision of a case as contemplated under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Prima facie, this argument seems to be correct but on examining the matter and probing into the legal aspects of the forwarding of the document, one has to say that the Subordinate Judge, when he came to the conclusion that the document in question has not been properly stamped has decided the case and that decision, so far as the Subordinate Judge is concerned, is final. It is not open to the party when once the Subordinate Judge reached that conclusion to get back the document or to proceed with the case as if the document has been validly tendered for purposes of letting in evidence. The finality that attaches to the view taken by the Subordinate Judge makes it a case decided by him. Therefore, it seems to me that apart from any authority, on first principles it can be said that the action of the Subordinate Jugde is a case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, but the matter does not rest here.

Mr. T. R. Srinivasan for the petitioner has brought to my notice two decisions, one of the Lahore High Court and the other of the Nagpur High Court. In Uttam Chand v. Parmanand1 Din Mohammad, J., had to deal with a similar case. There also a document which was produced before the Subordinate Judge was found to be insufficiently stamped and the Court determined the stamp duty payable before impounding and forwarded the document to the Collector. This action of the Court was sought to be revised in revision and on the objection taken that it was not a case decided within the meaning of the provisions of section 115,. Civil Procedure Code, the learned Judge held, that:

“It is a case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as it was disputed, between the parties qua this aspect of the case has, so far as the parties are concerned, been finally set at rest and no stage will ever arise later at which this order of the Subordinate Judge would be liable to be attacked.”

The learned Judge, therefore, held that it was a case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code. This decision has been followed later by the Nagpur High Court in In re Narayanadas Nathuram2, where Vivian Bose, J., following the decision in Uttam Chand v. Permanand1, and other cases came to the conclusion that the order of the lower Court impounding the document’is revisable. In view of the decisions cited above I have no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion. In the absence of any decision in Madras to show that the action of the Subordinate Judge is not a case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, I have to conclude that the Subordinate Judge has finally decided the matter so far as he was concerned. The preliminary objection is