1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2009 Dr.Sucheta Vishwanathan .. Petitioner versus Devendra Jain .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Lagu for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant who filed two applications at Exhibits 15 and 22. The application at Exhibit 15 was praying for impounding certain documents on which the respondent plaintiff is relying upon. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 27th February 2006. The other application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit 22 purporting to be an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The said application records that on 10th November 2006, the trial Court had passed an order to proceed with the suit without written statement. A contention was raised in the said application that application at Exhibit 15 will have to be decided first before the petitioner files written statement. The said application at Exhibit 22 was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 27th February 2006 by holding that 2 the application under section 151 of the said Code was not maintainable. An application for review was made at Exhibit 27 of the aforesaid two orders which has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that the application at Exhibit 22 was misconceived. The remedy of the petitioner was to apply for setting aside the order dated 10th November 2006 passed by the trial Court for proceeding with the suit without written statement. Instead of applying for setting aside the said order, the petitioner applied for correcting the said order by raising a contention that before written statement is filed, the application at Exhibit 15 will have to be decided. Therefore, the trial Court was right in rejecting the said application and rejecting the prayer for review of the order passed on application at Exhibit 22. 3. As far as impounding the documents is concerned, whether the parties to the suit apply for impounding or not, in view of sections 33 and 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, the trial Court is bound to perform its duty of examining whether the documents sought to be tendered in evidence are properly stamped. If the Court finds that documents are not properly stamped, necessary action in accordance with provisions of the said Act of 1958 will have to be taken. It is obvious that application at Exhibit 15 has not been decided on merits and as far as issue regarding sections 33 and 34 of the said Act of 1958 is concerned, the Court will have to apply its mind at 3 appropriate place. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is not entertained and the same is rejected. Issue whether the documents relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff are adequately stamped is kept open. Rejection of this petition will not preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate application for setting aside the order dated 10th November 2006. (A.S.OKA,J)