' Precise grounds argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant civil revision are that in suit for recovery of Rs,5,30,000 filed under Order 37, C.P.C. The applicant/defendant moved an application under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C. That said pronote suffered from deficiency of requisite stamp duty and the deficiency on the promote cannot be cured relying on Habib Bank Ltd. v.
Shahbaz Dino Comoro NLR 1989 TD 539 that the suit based on a promote which was insufficiently stamped not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed as such. This application was contested by the adverse party. It was submitted through written reply filed by the respondent that document was not produced in evidence and it was yet to be produced in evidence and according to sections 33 and 35-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 deficiency of stamp can be rectified and the Court has sufficient powers to remove the deficiency and direct the plaintiff to pay the penalty. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 1-4-2003 observed that the promote annexed with suit for recovery the required stamp of Rs,100 instead of Rs,10 as the amount in question was more than Rs,5,00,000, therefore, the applicant was directed to produce the original promote in the Court on the next date and rectify the same by paying the stamp of Rs,90 along with the penalty of ten times of deficient amount on the fixed date ice, 21-4-2003. This order is assailed in the instant civil revision.
2. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the learned Additional District Judge could not impound the pronote as there was specific bar of the same under section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Section 33 of the Stamp Act is reproduced below:-- "Examination and impounding of instruments.--- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same".
' Intention of legislature is very clear, the every objective which is kept in view is to stop an individual to escape from the responsibility with the law imposed upon the executant of the instrument to stamp duty and the officer should keep that object in view when dealing with all instruments coming before him and should not admit an improperly stamped paper in evidence and this is also the object of section 35-A. While reading both these sections 33 and 35-A it becomes clear that intention of legislature is not to make an instrument invalid. The intention is merely to protect the public revenue and not to interfere in the commercial delay and rule by invalidating instrument vital to the smooth flow of trade and commerce. As a document is admitted in evidence only when it is proved in accordance with the provisions of Art. 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. Mere placing a document does not mean that the document has been admitted in evidence, therefore, the matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the concerned Judicial Officer to impound the same.
4. The second argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stamps are not crossed properly. Stamps are visibly crossed, only the middle stamp which is cross but line is not in the middle and this is also not sufficient to invalidate the instrument, therefore, this argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not convincing. So far as Habib Bank Ltd. v.
Shahbaz Dino Soomro NLR 1989 TD 539 is concerned here the defendant was served and he did not file an application for granting him leave to defend the suit and the matter was proceeded ex parte but in the present case defendant is very much present and objecting to the admissibility of the instrument and the learned trial Court is impounding the document and directing the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp fee and also the penalty, therefore, every case stands on its own footings.
' I have not found any legal infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Instant civil revision is dismissed in limine.