1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3106 OF 2010. Subhash Parashram Gadhave. -: VERSUS :- Tejram Kashiram Gawande. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri Sumit Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner. Petitioner/defendant has got a un-registered Gift Deed in his favour and he applied to the trial Court to impound it. After hearing both the learned Counsel, the Trial Court has found that the document had gone beyond the scope of Section 32 A of the Bombay Court Fees Act, and then has also noticed the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2005 (1) All MR 335 (M/s. Conwood Agencies Pvt. Ltd. .vrs. Namdeo Pandurang Panchal and another) to note that 2 the said document can be used only for collateral purposes. Because of this, it has recorded a finding that the document is inadmissible in evidence. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel has contended that the finding about the admissibility of the document as reached is pre-mature and the question ought to have been decided at appropriate state i.e. at the stage of final arguments. According to him, because of said finding even collateral use of the said document is not possible. He has relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge reported at 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 22 (Santosh Anant Raut .vrs. Pukhraj Chogmal Rathod and another) to urge that insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence because of Sections 33 and 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, and hence the document ought to have been impounded. The respondent / plaintiff has chosen not to appear though he is served with notice for final disposal. There was no appearance on 12.08.2010 and hence, one opportunity was given to the respondent to appear and contest. 3 The application of mind by the Trial Court shows that it has found the document to be inadmissible, because it was not registered. It has not recorded any finding about the possible collateral use of that document or then about the contention that such collateral use is not permissible unless and until stamp duty is paid. Question whether for that purpose impounding was essential or not, is not gone into by the trial Court. Hence, only for said purpose the order passed below 62 on 03.05.2010 in Regular Civil Suit No. 107/2006 is quashed and set aside. The said application is restored back to the file of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon. The trial Court shall decide the application in the light of the observations made in this order as early as possible. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.