IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1066 of 2004() ---------------------- OS.95/2003 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF --------------------------- C.KESAVAN EMBRANTHIRI, S/O. KRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, NO.34, KARAKUNNU P.O., KARAKUNNU AMDOM AND DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT ---------------------- M.A.RAVEENDRAN THAMPAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN MOOSAD, LIC/UTI AGENT, SREE VIHAR, MoRAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.2587 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO. 1066 OF 2004 DISMISSED 11.6.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1066 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S. No.95 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed for realisation of money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest. It is the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- from him and executed an agreement on 2.1.1995 stating that the money will be repaid within eleven months. The plaintiff produced the agreement, but the defendant objected to the marking of the document stating that the instrument produced is not an agreement, but a bond and that the same requires stamp duty as provided under Article 13 of the Kerala Stamp Act. The question as to whether the document is a bond or an agreement was examined by the trial court as a preliminary point. The trial court held that the instrument is a bond and the stamp duty payable is Rs.18,750/- and the document was ordered to be impounded. C.R.P. NO.1066/2004 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit is not based on the said document, that it is based on a cheque issued by the respondent and that the so called agreement was produced only to substantiate the case of borrowal on the basis of the cheque. The only purpose behind production of the document, according to counsel, is for collateral purpose which supports the suit filed by the plaintiff based on the cheque. Apart from his contention that the document is not a bond, but an agreement, counsel submits that he does not want to rely on the said document and mark the same as a bond. He, therefore, prays that the order impounding the document may be set aside. 3. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is not relying on the document as a bond and that he never intended to mark the document as a bond, I am of the view that the revision petitioner can be permitted to take back the document. The request of the revision petitioner is allowed. Counsel further submitted that without impounding the document, the court below can consider the document for ancillary purpose which includes the transaction between the parties. This contention can also be considered by the court below at the time of taking evidence. The order under challenge directing the document to be impounded is, therefore, set aside. C.R.P. NO.1066/2004 3 The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1066/2004 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1066/2004 O R D E R 11th June, 2008