Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff Smt. Sushilabai Anandani, filed a civil suit in 1996. Along with the plaint, she filed three documents (Exhs.88, 89 and 90). On 19th July 2010, the plaintiff filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and entered the witness box, and the documents were exhibited without any objection from the defendants. Cross-examination of the plaintiff by defendant No.5 commenced on 2nd September 2010, during which the documents were confronted. In 2015, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed an application (Exh.208) praying that the documents be impounded on the ground that they were insufficiently stamped. The trial court partly allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to take steps for impounding. The plaintiff also filed a review application (Exh.211), which was rejected. The plaintiff challenged both orders in the High Court. The High Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655. Since the documents were admitted in evidence without any objection and cross-examination had already commenced, the trial court could not later direct impounding. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impounding of Documents - Admission Without Objection - Documents filed along with plaint in 1996 and exhibited in 2010 without any objection from defendants - Cross-examination of plaintiff had commenced - Application for impounding filed in 2015 is belated and cannot be allowed - Held that once documents are admitted in evidence without objection, the court cannot later direct impounding under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Paras 3-5). B) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 33 - Impounding - Timing of Objection - Objection to admissibility of unstamped/insufficiently stamped documents must be raised at the time of marking/exhibition - If no objection is taken, the document is admissible and cannot be impounded later - Held that the trial court's order to impound Exhs.88, 89 and 90 is contrary to law laid down in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 (Paras 4-5). C) Civil Procedure - Review - Maintainability - Application for review of order on impounding - Since the original order directing impounding was without jurisdiction, the review application was also liable to be dismissed - Held that the trial court correctly rejected the review application (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could direct impounding of documents (Exhs.88, 89 and 90) which were admitted in evidence without objection and after cross-examination had commenced.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 18.4.2017 on Exh.208 and Exh.211 are set aside. Trial court directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Documents admitted in evidence without objection cannot be impounded later
- Impounding of documents under Indian Stamp Act is not permissible after admission without objection
- Review application against impounding order is not maintainable if original order is without jurisdiction
