ORDER 1. With the consent finally heard. 2. By way of filing this review petition, the order dated 1.7.2015, passed in Writ Petition No.8429/2012, is sought to be reviewed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the words “for any purpose” mentioned in section 35 of Stamps Act appears to have escaped notice of this Court. Thus, matter needs review. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in, AIR 2003 Kar.241 (K. B. Jayaram and another vs. Navineethamma and others) and SCC Online Kar. 395 (Tukaram Ganu Pawar v. Chandra Atma Pawar). It is contended that in absence of payment of stamp duty, the documents cannot be considered for any purpose whatsoever. This includes and is applicable at the stage of injunction. 4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Bharadwaj. He submits that the writ petitioner was not signatory to the first agreement. As per Order 47 rule 4(2), CPC, no case is made out for review. He relied on a judgment of this Court, passed in Review Petition No.225/2015 (Ram Kumar Dixit v. Dhirendra Shukla and others). It is contended that under the garb of review, matter cannot be permitted to be re-argued or re-agitated. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is aprt to quote relevant portion of section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, the ‘Act’). It reads as under:- “35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. - No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped”. (Emphasis Supplied) 7. The bone of contention of Shri Chandil is based on the underline portion aforesaid. In addition, he relied on the judgments of Karnataka High Court aforesaid. 8. The Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others ( AIR 2005 SC 592 ), opined as under :- “89. Order 47, rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. In addition, he relied on the judgments of Karnataka High Court aforesaid. 8. The Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others ( AIR 2005 SC 592 ), opined as under :- “89. Order 47, rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence of when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.” 9. I find force in the argument of Shri Chandil that the words “for any purpose” is not dealt with by this Court while passing order dated 1.7.2015. Karnataka High Court in the aforementioned cases dealt with the said aspect. In K. B. Jayaram (supra). Justice T. S. Thakur (as His Lordship then was) opined that so long as the instrument relied upon by any party before a Court is required to be stamped and so long as that instrument remains unstamped, section 34 forbids its user for any purpose whatsoever by the Court. Authority or person competent to receive evidence. Similar view is taken in Tukaram Ganu Pawar (supra). 10. Considering the aforesaid, in my view, an error apparent on the face of record is pointed out. Thus, I deem it proper to review/recall the order dated 1.7.2005 and list Writ Petition No.8429/2012 for hearing afresh so that the parties may address on the relevant aspects in extenso. 11. Resultantly, the order dated 1.7.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.8429/2012 is reviewed/recalled. Writ Petition No.8429/2012 is restored to its original number.