Sri S.A. Imtiaz Pasha vs Adam Estates

B.V. Pinto, J.—Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Giridhar, learned Counsel for the respondent. This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the 3rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-25) in OS No. 4263/2009 in which the trial Court has refused to accept the objection raised by the defendant in marking the document which appears to be a letter dated 01.08.1998 written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The trial Court has overruled the objection of the defendant that the said document ought to have been stamped before marking the same. By overruling the said objection, the document has been marked as Ex. P9 by the trial Court.

Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court reported in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, and Jatinder Singh and Another Minor through Mother Vs. Mehar Singh and Others, submits that, the document Ex. P9 purports to be an instrument under the Stamp Act and therefore, it requires to be stamped before being accepted as a document in the Court.

Sri S.V. Giridhar, learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff on the other hand submits that, since no rights are transferred by the aforesaid Ex. P9, it cannot be termed as an instrument within the meaning of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

I have carefully gone through Ex. P9. Prima-facie it is observed that Ex. P9 is a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff in connection with the transactions between the parties and that the said letter does not in any way create, transfer, limit, extend or extinguish any right or liability between the parties. The said Ex. P9 is an unilateral letter which falls short of the definition of the agreement under Indian Contract Act or an instrument under Karnataka Stamp Act. In that view of the matter, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.