IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2007 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1929 CRP.No. 733 of 2003(B) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.22/2002 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, PAYYOLI .................... REVISION PETITIONER: DEFENDANT --------------------------- E.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KANARAN NAIR, PRANAMITHA NIVAS, PRESS OWNER, AYANIKKAD AMSOM, DESOM, AYANIKKAD P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF ---------------------- KANNAMVELI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KANARAN, AGED 65, TRADER, MELADI AMSOM, DESOM, MELADI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.1783/03 IN C.R.P.NO.733/03 DISMISSED 30.5.2007 SD/-PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... C.R.P.No.733 OF 2003 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 30TH MAY, 2007 ORDER The defendant in a suit for money is aggrieved by the construction of the document which was put in evidence by the plaintiff as an agreement. According to the petitioner, the document is a bond and should have been stamped accordingly. The learned Munsiff- Magistrate on an appreciation of the document referred to the statutory definition of the term “bond”, relied on the judgment of this Court in Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. v. Victory (1979 KLT 820) and also in Mathai Mathew v. Thampi (1989 (1) KLT 138) and held that the document is an agreement and overruled the contention raised by the petitioner that the document is a bond. 2. Heard Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. A copy of the document in question was made available for my perusal. The question is whether the document is executed in recognition of a pre-existing liability or whether a new liability is created by virtue of the document. I must say that two interpretations are possible. Since two interpretations are possible, I think the learned Munsiff-Magistrate was justified in leaning in favour of the C.R.P.N0.733/2003 -2- plaintiff, having regard to the principles laid down by K.T.Thomas, J. in Mathai Mathew v. Thampi (1989 (1) KLT 138) in which decision the learned Judge had followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Empress Mills v. Municipal Committee (AIR 1958 SC 341). The result of the above discussion is that the C.R.P. fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) tgl C.R.P.N0.733/2003 -3- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ............................................................. C.R.P.NO.2396 OF 2001 ORDER 30TH MAY, 2007. .............................................................