JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This original petition 1066/2024 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to set aside the orders passed on I.A. No. 7/2021 and I.A No.8/2019 in O.S. No. 41/2019, by the Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad. 2. The original petition 1589/2025 filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad, on I.A No.950/2021 on the application filed by the plaintiff by allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, who is also the petitioner in O.P (C) No.1589/2025. 4. For convenience, the petitioner in OP(C) NO.1066/2024 is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, and the petitioner in O.P.(C) No. 1589/2025, is referred to as the defendant. 5. The plaintiff herein has filed a suit for partition against the defendant in OS No.41 / 2019 through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayaprakash. It is contended that the plaintiff is currently residing in abroad and is unable to prosecute the matter, hence instituted the suit through his friend and Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayaprakash. 6. After the appearance of the defendant, an application was filed by the defendant seeking to impound the Power of Attorney produced by the plaintiff through his Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Jayaprakash. Ext.P2 is the Power of Attorney. It was alleged that Ext.P2, Power of Attorney, was not a registered document. The Power of Attorney conferred the power on the Attorney holder to sell the scheduled property. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner was liable to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty on the Power of Attorney document, and accordingly, the defendant prayed for impounding the said document. 7. After hearing the arguments, the trial court, by order dated 16.12.2023, allowed I.A No.7/2021 filed by the respondent /defendant. By the said order, the trial court, impounded the Power of Attorney under section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed the District Collector to collect the appropriate stamp duty and penalty as per sections 37 (2) and 39 (b) of the Act. 8. By the said order, the trial court, impounded the Power of Attorney under section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed the District Collector to collect the appropriate stamp duty and penalty as per sections 37 (2) and 39 (b) of the Act. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that, prior to the passing of the order dated 16.12.2023, he has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking return of the earlier Power of Attorney, which is produced as Ext. P2 and permission to produce a fresh Power of Attorney, which is produced as Ext. P5. The trial court dismissed the application on 16.12.2023 on the ground that the said court had already passed an order impounding the earlier Power of Attorney. Consequently, the subsequent application was rejected on that ground. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff has filed the original petition O.P(C) No.1066 of 2024 for setting aside the order for impounding the Power of Attorney passed by the trial court, as well as to set aside the order dismissing I.A No.8/2021, and to permit the petitioner to contest the matter. 9. The case of the respondent/ defendant (who is the petitioner) in O.P(C) 1589/2025 is that, the trial court vide order dated 16.12.2023 on I.A No.7/2021 impounded the Power of Attorney produced by Mr. Jayaprakash and referred the document to the District Collector for the purpose of imposing appropriate stamp duty and penalty. In meanwhile, the plaintiff himself filed two interlocutory applications; one is for seeking permission to contest the case by himself by discharging the Power of Attorney holder, which is still pending consideration, and another application filed by the plaintiff in I.A No.950/2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings, and cause title which was allowed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by the order under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the defendant filed O.P(C) No.1589/2025, seeking to set aside the order mainly on the ground that; a) the application filed by the plaintiff for discharging the Power of Attorney Holder is still pending; b) the order impounding the Power of Attorney document for the collection of stamp duty and penalty has not yet been complied with. In such circumstances, the trial court committed an error in allowing the plaintiff's amendment application without any proper consideration and passing a cryptic order which is not sustainable. Hence, the petitioner prayed to set aside the said order. 10. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent were argued at length in respect of both cases. 11. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. 12. The point that arises for my consideration is; 1)Whether the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the trial court in I.A. No. 7/2021 in O.S. No. 41/2019, impounding the Power of Attorney, and challenged in O.P.(C) No. 1066/2024, calls for interference? 2. Whether the order allowing the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, as sought by the plaintiff and challenged by the defendant in O.P.(C) No. 1589/2025, calls for interference? 13. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for partition and separate possession through his Power of Attorney holder Mr. Jayaprakash. Ext.P2 is the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of Mr. Jayaprakash. Based on the said Power of Attorney, the said Mr. Jayapraksh filed a suit against the defendant. 14. It is not in dispute that the respondent/defendant entered appearance and filed an application seeking to impound the Power of Attorney on the grounds of non-registration and insufficiency of stamp duty. 15. After hearing both sides, the trial court, by order dated 16.12.2023, impounded the Power of Attorney under Section 33 of the Act, that the document be referred to the District Collector for the collection of the applicable stamp duty and penalty. However, after filing this application by the respondent/defendant, the plaintiff has filed another I.A No.1697/2019 under Section 151 of CPC seeking return of the earlier Power of Attorney and permission to produce a fresh Power of Attorney, as per Ext.P5 dated 28.06.2019. The contention of the plaintiff is that the I.A No.1697/2019 filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to produce the fresh Power of Attorney has been allowed. Therefore, it is submitted that once the old Power of Attorney (Ext. P2) has been replaced by the new Power of Attorney (Ext. P5), the question of impounding the document, i.e., the old Power of Attorney, Ext.P2, is unsustainable. Hence, prays for setting aside the said order. Therefore, it is submitted that once the old Power of Attorney (Ext. P2) has been replaced by the new Power of Attorney (Ext. P5), the question of impounding the document, i.e., the old Power of Attorney, Ext.P2, is unsustainable. Hence, prays for setting aside the said order. 16. On the other hand, the same was seriously opposed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contending that no order has been passed by the trial court for accepting the second General Power of Attorney, Ext.P5, by replacing the first Power of Attorney, produced by the Power of Attorney holder. On perusal of the records, it is seen that no order has been passed by the trial court. Ext.P3 in I.A No. 1697/2019, shows that it was allowed by the trial court by accepting the second Power of Attorney (Ext.P5) and replacing or discarding the first Power of Attorney produced by the plaintiff as per Ext.P2. Therefore, a mere production of another document along with an application does not itself amount to acceptance of the document by the trial court. Since there is no specific order showing that the trial court received and accepted the second Power of Attorney dated 27.06.2019 (Ext. P5), therefore, the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that the trial court accepted the second Power of Attorney is not correct and cannot be accepted. 17. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka and others v. M. Muniraju [2002 KHC 3513] , wherein the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the suit of the plaintiff where suits were filed by the Power of Attorney holder without authority. 18. That apart, the Power of Attorney holder, while producing the second Power of Attorney, has stated in paragraph 4 of his affidavit that earlier the plaintiff had given an oral Power of Attorney and therefore he was now producing the written Power of Attorney. On perusal of the statement made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney holder in I.A No. 1697/2019, which is nothing but misleading the court, stating that there is no Power of Attorney produced earlier, and the suit was filed solely based on an oral Power of Attorney, and he wants to produce Ext.P5 Power of Attorney for contesting the matter. Therefore, even if Ext.P5, the second Power of Attorney, is received by the court, it cannot be a ground to state that the same was accepted and replaced the earlier Power of Attorney, Ext.P2, produced by the plaintiff. However, though these I.As were filed, there is no order passed by the trial court. It is noted that on the first Power of Attorney produced by the plaintiff has been impounded by the court vide order dated 16.12.2023 and referred to the District Collector for collecting the appropriate stamp duty and penalty. 19. If such being the case, once again, the petitioner cannot file another application for replacing the new Power of Attorney in place of the old Power of Attorney. The filing of the second Power of Attorney was only an attempt to evade the payment of stamp duty and penalty, which would cause loss to the State exchequer. Once the original Power of Attorney is filed along with the suit or plaint, it becomes a part of the suit document. Therefore, once the suit is admitted and numbered based upon the Power of Attorney and once the court has directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty as per Section 33 of the Act, the plaintiff is required to pay the duty and penalty. 20. The plaintiff has produced the second Power of Attorney only to overcome or avoid the payment of duty and penalty, which cannot be acceptable once the document is taken on record by the Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial court rightly dismissed the application in I.A No.8/2019 in view order in I.A No.7/2021 under Section 151 of CPC for impounding the documents by the trial court. Therefore, the plaintiff is required to pay the duty and penalty in respect of the Power of Attorney, Ext.P2. 21. The plaintiff has already filed another interlocutory application seeking permission to contest the case by himself, which is still pending. Additionally, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to delete the name of the Power of Attorney holder by retaining his own name in I.A No.950/2021, which came to be allowed by the trial court. 21. The plaintiff has already filed another interlocutory application seeking permission to contest the case by himself, which is still pending. Additionally, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to delete the name of the Power of Attorney holder by retaining his own name in I.A No.950/2021, which came to be allowed by the trial court. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent that the I.A filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to contest the matter by himself has neither been heard nor disposed of by the trial court. If such being the case, allowing the application for amendment and deleting the name of the Power of Attorney holder is nothing but to supersede the order passed by the court for having impounded the document and also rejection of the application for seeking permission to file a second Power of Attorney. 22. On perusal of the record, it is evident that I.A No.950/2021 was filed by the plaintiff seeking to delete the name of the Power of Attorney holder. However, there is no order passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiff to contest the case by himself or to discharge the Power of Attorney holder. Therefore, without passing the order allowing the plaintiff to contest the case by himself and allowing the amendment, deleting the name of the Power of Attorney holder is nothing but putting the cart before the horse. 23. Therefore, without passing an order permitting the plaintiff to contest the case in person and until discharge the Power of Attorney holder, the application for amendment cannot be allowed. The permission to contest the matter and the amendment should be heard and disposed of together. Therefore, the order under challenge dated 10.06.2025 on I.A No.950/2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC passed by the trial court (challenged in O.P (C) No.1589 /2025) deserved to be set aside. 24. In view of my findings in the above case, once the court passes an order impounding the document, the plaintiff is required to pay the duty and penalty as directed by the court. 24. In view of my findings in the above case, once the court passes an order impounding the document, the plaintiff is required to pay the duty and penalty as directed by the court. Although the plaintiff may be permitted to contest the case in person by discharging the Power of Attorney holder and once the document has been admitted as the plaint is signed by the Power of Attorney holder, the plaintiff cannot withdraw the power of attorney without permission of the court in order to avoid the duty and penalty towards the insufficient stamps as per the Kerala Stamp Act. Therefore, seeking liberty to file an application for permission to contest the case in person shall be decided by the trial court. Accordingly, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 25. In the result, the O.P No.1066/2024 filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. O.P No. 1589/2025 filed by the defendant is hereby allowed, and the order on I.A No.950/2021 is hereby set aside