N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the plaintiffs revision being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. j, Yadgir in unnumbered Original Suit of 2003 dated 31- 3-2003 directing the plaintiff or his Counsel to sign the Court fee stamp papers. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,39,34,033. 80 and for consequential reliefs against the defendants. The plaintiff paid the requisite Court-fee of rs. 8,77,000/ -. But the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Yadgir, passed the order on 31-3- 2003 which reads as follows :"the plaintiff has furnished Court-fee stamp papers worth Rs. 8,77,000/- along with the plaint. But neither the plaintiff nor his advocate have signed on all the stamp papers. Month and year are typed but date is not typed on the stamp papers. So also, advocate's name is typed but, the advocate has not signed. On 18-3-2003, this Court specifically directed the plaintiff to put his signature on all the stamp papers or the advocate for the plaintiff should sign on all the stamp papers. Instead of complying with the order of this Court dated 18-3-2003 the learned advocate for the plaintiff filed a memo stating that there is no provision under any law to put the signature either by the plaintiff or advocate for the plaintiff and insisted the court to show such provision. It is common knowledge that the plaintiff or his advocate shall sign on all the case papers with date and there is no need to show any such provision in this regard. Hence, the plaintiff is directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 18-3-2003 on or before 10-4-2003. "it is this order which is questioned in the present revision. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Sri Jayavittala Rao kolar contended that all the stamp papers have been duly defaced by typing the cause title of the parties. Therefore, the requirements of Section 13 of the Karnataka Stamp act, 1957 have been complied with. In that view of the matter, the impugned order directing the plaintiffs Counsel to sign on all the stamp papers is not proper. Accordingly, prayed to direct the trial Court to register the Original Suit and to proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, the requirements of Section 13 of the Karnataka Stamp act, 1957 have been complied with. In that view of the matter, the impugned order directing the plaintiffs Counsel to sign on all the stamp papers is not proper. Accordingly, prayed to direct the trial Court to register the Original Suit and to proceed in accordance with law. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Advocate Sri j. Nagaraj submits that if the stamp papers were to have been duly defaced, that meets the requirement. Accordingly, prayed to dispose of the revision. ( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise are : 1. Whether all the sheets of Court-fee stamp papers involving 1174 sheets have to be defaced either by affixing the signature of the plaintiff or by his counsel so as to comply with the requirement of Section 13 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957? or, is it sufficient if the cause title of the parties are typed on all the sheets? ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the suit of the plaintiff is to recover a huge amount of Rs. 13,39,34,033. 80 and he has also paid the requisite Court-fee of Rs. 8,77,000/- as per the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The preliminary objection of the trial Court is that all the stamp papers have not been properly defaced either by the plaintiff or by his Counsel by putting their signature. ( 7 ) SECTION 13 of the Karnataka Stamp act, 1957 reads thus :"13. Instruments stamped with impressed stamps how to be written; Every instrument written upon paper stamped with an impressed stamp shall be written in such manner that the stamp may appear on the face of the instrument and cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument. " ( 8 ) THE Karnataka Court-fees and Suits valuation Act, 1958 provides for levy of court-fees on the basis of the relief claimed under the Act and the same is a revenue to the State. When such Court-fee Stamp papers are produced, the purpose of defacing is to see that it is not used in any other case as contemplated under Section 13 of the karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. When such Court-fee Stamp papers are produced, the purpose of defacing is to see that it is not used in any other case as contemplated under Section 13 of the karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. In the present case neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiffs counsel have signed the stamp papers, but it is clear that the cause title of the parties have been duly typed. Therefore, it satisfies the requirement of Section 13 of the karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. If rhe matter connected with the suit claim or the names of the parties were to have been typed, it would amount to cancellation of the stamps which cannot be used for any other purpose by any of the parties. Similar view is taken in the case of Dinaji v. Jiwanlal, reported in AIR 1981 Madh Pra 36, men Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. R. H. Windsor (I) Ltd. , reported in AIR 1988 Bombay 352 and so also, in the case of K. A. Lona v. M/s. Dada haji Ibrahim Hilari and Co. , reported in AIR 1981 Kerala 86. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection of the trial Court directing the plaintiff or his Counsel to comply with its order does not arise. ( 9 ) EVEN otherwise, on filing of the papers to the Court along with the stamp papers, the Court office puts the seal of the court on all the stamp papers and will punch the stamps. Thereby, it also results in defacing of the stamp papers. ( 10 ) THERE is no other provision in the civil Rules of Practice or under the High court Rules describing the manner as to in what way the stamp papers have to be defaced. Therefore, if the requirement of section 13. of the Karnataka Stamp Act is com- plied, it suffices the matter. Accordingly the trial Court is directed to register the case and proceed in accordance with law. ( 11 ) WITH the said observation, this Revision is disposed of. Order accordingly.