ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P/5) and 12.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the trial Court and one document was presented by the present petitioner before the trial Court. The said document is a unregistered document, which is also stated to be insufficiently stamped. The said document dated 12.01.1989 was marked as Exhibit during course of evidence on 07.12.2019 and objection was raised by the defendants. The trial Court dealt with the objection and on the anvil of Section 49 of the Registration Act, the trial Court discarded the objection and the document was exhibited in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the defendant moved an application under Section 151 (Annexure P/6) pointing out that the Court has only dealt with the objection as to non-registration of the said document in its order dated 07.12.2019, but has not dealt with the objection has to insufficiency of stamp duty.

3. The trial Court, thereafter passed order dated 12.11.2021 and ordered that in terms of Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, the said document be impounded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P. No.1065/2022, which was withdrawn vide order Annexure P/2 with liberty to move application for review before the trial Court. The trial Court has now rejected the review application vide order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P/5), which is also impugned in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner wants to rely the said document dated 12.01.1989 only for collateral purpose and thus, there is no requirement to impound the said document because it is admissible in evidence even without payment of stamp duty.

5. It is alternatively pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not intend to use the said document for any purpose now and he may be allowed to withdraw the said document.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The records of the case show that on 07.12.2019, the defendant had taken objection as the admissibility of the document in terms of non-registration and insufficiency of stamp duty. However, the trial Court rejected the objection upon considering only the aspect of non-registration in terms of Section 49 of Registration Act. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application under Section 151 pointing out the fact that the Court has not yet decided the objection in terms of insufficiency of stamp duty.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the order dated 07.12.2019 on the ground that he intends to use the document only for collateral purpose. However, as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the use of document intended to be collateral purpose is relevant only in the matter of registration of document and not in the matter of payment of stamp duty. Thus, the reliance of the petitioner that the document dated 12.01.1989 is intended to be used only for collateral purpose, is found to be misconceived.

9. The statutory provision as contend in Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act are as under:-

"33. Examination and impounding of instruments.-(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.

(2 ) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed:

Provided that- (a) nothing here