ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22.09.2022, made in I.A.No.462 of 2022 in O.S.No.118 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FAC), Cuddalore.

The civil revision petition on hand has been instituted challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.462 of 2022 in O.S.No.118 of 2016.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent instituted a Suit for recovery of money.

3. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the documents namely Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked by the respondent/plaintiff in the Suit was allowed to be marked with objection by the revision petitioner/defendant. The trial is in progress and the evidence was closed.

4. Question arises, whether the order impugned passed in I.A.No.462 of 2022, permitting the respondent/plaintiff to cure the defective payment of stamp duty marked in the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 with objection is in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner mainly contended that such a course adopted by the Trial Court is impermissible, in view of the fact that the documents are not admissible in evidence and more so, at the time of presentation. It is not in dispute that the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked with objections. While so, at later point of time, the Court cannot allow the respondent/plaintiff to cure the defects, which is incurable under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.

6. Curative procedures adopted by the order of the Trial Court caused greater prejudice to the revision petitioner/defendant in establishing their case, since those hand written receipts marked with objections may be taken as undue advantage by the respondent/plaintiff for the purpose of securing relief in the Suit.

7. In support of the contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in [CDJ 2001 SC 119], wherein, the Apex Court observed in paragraph 14 that “If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course”.

8. Relying on the above observation made by the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated that in the present case, admittedly, the Stamps were not fixed by the respondent/plaintiff at the time of presentation of documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Thus, the said defect is impermissible and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

9. In the case of Subramaniam Vs. Gunasundari reported in [(2007) 2 MLJ 241], the Madras High Court made an observation as follows:

“In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in apart and the order of the trial court modified. The trial court is directed to ascertain the stamp duty and penalty payable upon the disputed document, then call upon the party who wants to rely on those documents, to pay the stamp duty and penalty, and then on payment of stamp duty and penalty, admit the document in evidence, whether it for collateral purpose or otherwise, which could be decided at the later stage while hearing the case as guided by the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another (2001) 3 SCC 1. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.”

10. In the case of Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram reported in [(2020) 16 SCC 209], the Apex Court again reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case (cited supra) in paragraph 20, which reads as under:

“20. This Court in [Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujar