Jurisdiction to reopen a signed decree ended; impounding documents afterward was without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Once a decree has been signed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to reopen the matter for impounding documents, and thereafter may act only in the manner permitted by the Stamp Act. An order made after purportedly reopening the civil suit to impound documents and direct recovery of stamp duty and penalty is therefore without jurisdiction. The revisional court may interfere where such an order is passed in the suit after the court has assumed jurisdiction to revisit the matter, and the impugned order was set aside with the revision allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to reopen the case and impound the documents after the decree had been signed, and whether the revisional court could interfere under its revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Once the decree was signed, the court below had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter for impounding the documents and could proceed only in the manner permitted by the Stamp Act after that stage. The order impounding the documents and directing recovery of stamp duty and penalty was therefore without jurisdiction. The revisional court held that, since the impugned order was passed in the civil suit itself after the court had purported to reopen the case, jurisdiction existed to examine and correct the order under the revisional power.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the revision was allowed.

---