1. The opponent has filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge First Class Ujjain. The Suit was resisted by the petitioner and was ultimately dismissed by the Court by its judgment dated 16-1,1-1955.
2. On 1-2-1954 the learned Civil Judge realised that he had not passed an order as regards recovery of duty and penalty on Exhibit D/1, the document produced in defence by the petitioner. He therefore passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 715 for stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this revision-application.
3. Mr, Patel contended, that on 26-11-1953 when the Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit the Court became functus officio and ceased to have any jurisdiction over the case. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on 1-2-1954was without jurisdiction and illegal.
4. The contention of Mr. Patel is supported by the decision of Calcutta High Court in Khetra Mohan v. Jamini Kanta, in AIR 1927 Calcutta 472 (A). That was also a case where the Court passed the order for recovering duty and penalty some time after the suit was disposed of. Then aggrieved party filed a revision-application which was allowed. The learned Judges held that as the suit was already disposed of and decree signed and sealed the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act did not apply and the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the way he did.
To the same effect is the judgment of Madras High Court in Appaji Chetti v. Govindasami Reddi, in AIR 1937 Madras 763 (B). The learned Judge had in that case relied upon the Calcutta case referred above and held that where the judgment was delivered, the Court became functus officio and it is not therefore competent to reopen the matter and impound the document. Its admission may be called in question in a proceeding under Section 61 of the Stamp Act.
5. In Baldeo Prasad v. Ajodhya Prasad, in AIR 1937 Oudh 176 (C), the learned Judge had adopted the same view and held that where a document is admitted in evidence through oversight by the Court and decree is passed thereon, it could not realise deficiency in stamps and penalty by passing an order to that effect when the suit has been disposed of.
6. I am therefore of the opinion that the Lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order under revision and hence it is set aside.
7. In the circumstances of this case I pass no order as to costs.