N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH, J. - (1.) THIS is the defendants revision being aggrieved of the order passed in O.S. No. 34 of 1999 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, dated 23 -6 -2003 permitting the plaintiff to mark the certified copy of the map,
(2.) THE brief facts are as follows. - - The suit of the plaintiff is for declaration and consequential reliefs. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the case was posted for evidence. While the plaintiff was in the witness -box, produced a certified copy of map issued by the Corporation pertaining to the suit scheduleproperty. The marking of the certified copy of the map was objected by the defendants on the ground that the map is an 'instrument' coming within the meaning of Section 2(1) (j) and (k) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and that the document was to be impounded. Therefore, the plaintiff has to pay duty and penalty. After hearing the learned Counsels for the plaintiff and defendants, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, permitted the plaintiff to mark the certified copy of the map holding that it is not an 'instrument' to impound the document, ordering to pay duty and penalty. It is this order which is now questioned in the present revision. Learned Counsel Sri Appa Rao contended that the certified copy of the map sought to be produced in the evidence is a document as defined under Section 2(1) (j) and (k) of the Act, i.e., in other words, the map is an 'instrument'. Therefore, for marking of the document the Court has to impound it, collect the stamp duty under Section 34 of the Act then permit the party to produce the same in evidence. In support of his contention, also relies on the decision in Hanumanumul Baid v. Ananthapadmanahha., 1991(3) Kar. L.J. 255 : : ILR1992KAR1133 Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Basavaraj Kareddy for the respondent firstly, contended that what is sought to be produced is a certified copy of the map issued by the Corporation and that it is not an 'instrument' so as to attract the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and to pay the duty and penalty. Further, contended that if the transaction were to take place between two parties under an 'instrument', it attracts the Act. Therefore, the certified copy of the map, which is required to be produced does not come within the definition of Section 2(1) (j) and (k) of the Act. Secondly, contended that the revision under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable in view of the amended provisions. Even if this revision were to have been disposed of, it does not result in disposal of the suit in its entirety. Therefore, on this ground also prays to dismiss the revision.;