- (1.) This civil revision under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-10-92, delivered by Civil Judge, Malihabad, al Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 114 of 89. National Insurance Co. v. M/s. Sakun Uddyog , C-24 i.e. an applications was moved by opposite party No. 3, i.e. Bank of Baroda thereby the present opposite party No. 3, prayed that the amount under the final award dated 3-3-89, be directed to be given to the bank and the National Insurance Co. Ltd., be directed to pay the entire amount awarded under the above mentioned award. An objection C-25on record of the Court below was filed by the opposite-parties 1 and 2 that the award has been given on insufficient stamp paper. In other words the award which has been given at Delhi and has been filed in the Civil Court Lucknow has been (sic) insufficient stamp paper and so it cannot be made rule of the Court and this issue may be decided earlier than any decision on merits. C-19 has been an application on behalf of National Insurance Co., i. e., the present revisionist applicant to the effect that legally it is necessary that this issue be decided first as preliminary issue whether the award is on insufficiently stamped paper and till it is decided no decision can be given on the merits or de-merits of the award. The learned Civil Judge after having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length held that the award was given at Delhi and the Stamp Duty payable at Delhi had been paid but the stamp duty payable in Uttar Pradesh is more than the one payable at Delhi and so unless the deficiency of stamp is not made good by payment of the further stamp duty the award cannot be admissible and, as such, the learned Civil Judge directed the opposite parties who had moved the application for award being made rule of the Court, for the payment of the money thereunder to make the deficiency of the stamp duty good i. e. to make a deposit of further stamp duty so as to make deficiency good and granted one week's time tor the purpose and fixed 23-10-92, as the next date for further proceedings.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved from the above mentioned order dated 12-10-92, National Insurance Co., i.e., objector filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this Court. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 appearance has been put in Shri A. K. Chaturvedi, an advocate of this Court and on behalf of opposite party No. 3, i. e., Bank of Baroda Shri G. S. Misra, Advocate has put in appearance and filed his power, I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Shri R. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist applicant submitted before me that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to issue direction for filing or depositing of the additional stamp duty. He submitted that the award is insufficiently stamped as such it was inadmissible even if had been filed by the Arbitrator in Court but the Civil Court and when it found that it was insufficiently stamped it could not direct that the deficiency of stamp duty as regards the award in question be made good within the time prescribed, and as such, he submitted that the order of the learned Civil Judge be set aside. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-namely, Shri R. P. Srivastava, has been contested and challenged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, particularly, opposite-party No. 3, the Bank of Baroda. It has also been contended that the order impugned directing the Bank to make good the deficiency of stamp duty is in the nature of interlocutory order and the revision is not maintainable. Shir Chaturvedi submitted that in view of the provise to Section 115 of the Code as amended by U. P. Civil Law Amendment this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code in the present case as the order is not in the nature of an order amounting to be a case decided nor thereby any injury of substantial nature or otherwise has been caused to the revisionist-applicant. It has been submitted that the award has been given by the Arbitrator at Delhi after having paid the necessary stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Act as applicable in the territory of Delhi but when the award has been filed in or before the Civil Court under the laws applicable in Uttar Pradesh i.e Stamp Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh it has been found that there has been deficiency of the stamp duty and, as such, the Civil Court has passed an order to substantiate the Course of justice and has done something to remove the technical obstruction, if any, that may stand in the way of Court doing justice, it has also been stated that the order of the trial Court has been complied with by the opposite-parties by paying the deficient stamp duty. In the course of his arguments. In rejoinder learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the matters where deficient stamp duty has been paid law provides for impounding of the document under Section 33 onwards of the Indian Stamp Act and no other mode is open to Court to enable either the Arbitrator or the parties to pay deficient stamp duty so as to make the award admissible. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, a revision lies from an order of the Court which amounts to a case decided and not from an order which is in the nature of an interlocutory order. Apart from that the proviso to Section 115 of the Code puts a restraint on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code as well as directs that the revisional Court shall not vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue in the course of suit or proceeding except where the order if it had been made in favour of the part applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings or in the alternative the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom it was made. For a moment even if it be taken that expression "case decided" includes in itself any order made or an order deciding an issue in the course of any suit or proceeding in the widest sense of the term and not restricting the meaning of this phrase i. e. to the meaning given to this expression by the Courts earlier as a term not including in itself the interlocutory orders for a moment. The revisional powers have not to be exercised where the order does not come within the purview of exception provided in either clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to original Section 115 sub-section (1) or proviso second to Section 115 of the Code as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh as per U. P. Act No. 31 of 78, Section 19-A of Indian Stamp Act, as inserted by U. P. Act No. 3 of 36 and Act No. 28 of 52 reads as under:- "19-A." Payment of Duty on certain instruments liable to increase duty in Uttar Pradesh under clause (bb) of Section 3, Where any instrument has become chargeable in any part of the territories to which this Act applies other than Uttar Pradesh with duty under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force in any part of the said territories and thereafter becomes chargeable with higher rate of duty in Uttar Pradesh under clause (bb) of the first proviso to Section 3:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the first proviso to Section 3 the amount of duty chargeable on such instrument shall be the amount chargeable on it under Schedule 1 -A or Schedule 1-B less the amount, if any, already paid on it in the said territory; (2) In addition to the stamp, if any, already affixed thereto such instrument shall be stamped with stamps necessary for the payment of amount of duty chargeable on it under clause (i) in the same manner and at the same time by the same person as that such instruments were an instrument received in the territories for the first time at the time when it became chargeable with higher duty."
(3.) A reading of Section 19-A of the Indian Stamp Act reveals that it deals with a special situation in the sense that in cases where an instrument is chargeable with certain amount of duty in any State within India other than the State of Uttar Pradesh and is executed there on a stamp paper in accordance with law of that State and sufficient stamp duty has been paid in the form of stamp adhesive according to law of that State but when such document is being received within the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh chargeable with a higher rate of duty then notwithstanding anything in the first proviso to sub-section (3) the amount chargeable as duty on that document will be the amount chargeable on that document under Schedule 1-A or 1-B, as the case may be, minus or less the amount of duty, if any, already paid on it in the State where it had been executed i. e. the document in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be chargeable on being received in the territory with the additional amount or additional amount of stamp duty by which the stamp duty or duty exceeds the amount of duty already paid in any part of the territory of India other than the State of Uttar Pradesh. The question, therefore, definitely arises when such duty can be said to be chargeable and from whom. A reading of proviso to Section 3 per se shows that every instrument mentioned in either Schedule 1-A 1 or 1 -B which has not been previously executed by any person or executed out of Uttar Pradesh i.e. outside Uttar Pradesh, the instrument covered by Schedule 1 -A on or after the date on which the U. P. Stamp Act 1948 came into force or in the case instruments mentioned in Schedule 1-B coming into force U. P. Stamp Act 1952, and the document relates to any property situate or relates to any matter or when some thine to be done in Uttar Pradesh and is received in Uttar Pradesh i.e. such document becomes liable to charge of duties under Schedule ;-A or 1-B in case of the document not executed in Uttar Pradesh when the document is received in Uttar Pradesh for something being done or to be done, in Uttar Pradesh. A reading of Section 19-A along with proviso to Section 3 it becomes clear that when such instrument is received in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the first time the liability to pay necessary stamp duty in the same manner arises as in the case of other documents. At the first time when additional stamp duty is to be paid is not paid the Section 33 may come into picture, otherwise the power can be exercised under Section 19-A of the Indian Stamp Act, in cases of such documents. Here in the present case awards have been executed at Delhi according to Indian Stamp Act applicable there it was properly stamped. The document was filed before the Civil Judge by the Arbitrator. The question arose if additional duty was payable and if yes the additional duty is to be paid. The Court had to consider that question. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that unless sufficient stamp duty is paid document cannot be received and it is not admissible and cannot be treated to be received, and, as such, it applied the special law, along with its exercise of inherent powers and it appears to me that the Court while exercising inherent power vested in it in the interest of justice and to avoid obstruction to the course of justice on sheer technical ground he acted in accordance with law and spirit of Section 19-A of the Act in passing the order impugned and in directing the opposite-parties to deposit the additional stamp duty within certain time and on its being so deposited the additional duty was deemed to have been paid in the same manner and at the same time and by the person concerned as if the document has been received for the first time. In my opinion, the learned civil Judge when he so directed the filing of the additional stamp duty and prescribed the time he did not commit any error of law or of jurisdiction as he acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in Uttar Pradesh read with Section 151 of the Code i. e., inherent powers vested in him. Apart from that, in my opinion, the order impugned is not covered by any of the exceptional clauses i.e. those of exceptions provided in the second proviso to Section 115 of the Code as applicable in Uttar Pradesh. As such, the rider which has been placed by the proviso that this Court will not vary or reverse any order or set aside any order in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code remains operative when the case does not come within either the exception to the proviso no revisional power under Section 115 of the Code can be exercised in applicant's favour.";