IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11107 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2009 IN O.S.NO.268/2007 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. PETITIONER: --------------- N.D.JOSEPH @ JOSSY, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, NADAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, C.FLAT 46, FACT QUARTERS. BY ADV. MR.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. A.V.MARTIN @ KUTTAN, S/O.VARGHESE, ANTHIKATTU HOUSE, ELOOR,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, ELOOR VILLAGE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PARAVOOR TALUK. 2. A.V.ANTONY, S/O.VARGHESE, ANTHIKATTU HOUSE, ELOOR, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI,, ELOOR VILLAGE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PARAVOOR TALUK. ADV. MR.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11107 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The first defendant in O.S.No.268 of 2007 on the Principal Sub Court, North Paravoor, is the petitioner. The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. 2. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement. In the written statement, the petitioner raised objection regarding the admissibility of the agreement produced in evidence stating that it is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the trial court examined the question of admissibility of the agreement and passed Ext.P5 order. The plaintiff maintained the stand that the suit document is an agreement. The petitioner contested the suit and contended that the suit document is a pro-note. Petitioner also contended that the suit document is either a pro-note or a bond. Therefore, the court below considered the question as to whether the suit document is an agreement for sale or pro-note or bond. Court below after reading the document and after discussing its nature held that the said document is neither a pro-note or a bond, but, it is an agreement for sale. The court found that the W.P.C.No.11107 Of 2009 ::2:: agreement is insufficiently stamped and therefore the document is impounded and the plaintiff is directed to pay sufficient stamp duty and penalty payable under law within seven days. 3. The question of admissibility of the document in evidence was raised by the petitioner and the court examined the question as to whether the suit document is sufficiently stamped or not. The nature of the document was examined by the court below for the purpose of decision as to whether the document is sufficiently stamped or not. The court on interpretation found that the suit document is an agreement which is insufficiently stamped. In fact the question as to whether the suit document is a concocted document or as to whether the same was executed by the defendant or not are questions not decided in the impugned order. It is needless to say that such questions are necessarily to be gone into by the court below during trial. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or want of jurisdiction. The writ petition stand dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-