9911796707
TMI Blog1948 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th February 1943. 2. During the trial of the case two documents Exs. P-3 and D-2 were produced. They were exchange deeds concerning immovable property. The Court did not impound these documents and proceeded to judgment which was delivered on 13th February 1948. After this an appeal was filed and disposed of on 12th February 1944. 3. On 27th July 1945 the Court reopened the case to impound the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot effect' any transfer but merely recorded the fact of a transfer that had already taken place. It was also contended that the Court below being functus officio after signing the decree had no jurisdiction to impound the document and to order the recovery of the stamp duty and the penalty. 4. Puranik J. before whom the case came in motion issued notice to the Advocate-General. At the hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no jurisdiction to proceed in the way it did: see Chunduri Panakala Rao v. Penugonda Kumaraswami A.I.R. (24) 1937 Mad. 763, Reference under Stamp Act, Section 46, 8 Mad. 564 F.B. and Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau A.I.R. (17) 1930 Bom. 392, and the cases sited in these rulings. 6. It was argued that I have no jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C, to revise the order. The matter presents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
