IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (20TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4518 OF 2010 Between: Tirukkovilluru Peethambaram and two others … Petitioners And: Nagala Appa Rao and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4518 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2010 in I.A.No.529 of 2010 in O.S.No.461 of 2010, on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Sections 33, 35 & 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, seeking to send the disputed document viz., agreement of sale dated 22.07.1998 to the Stamp Collector, for the purpose of impounding, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. None appeared the respondents and the notices issued to them were returned as ‘refused’. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.07.1998. It is stated that the respondents/defendants remained ex parte in the suit. At the time of recording the evidence of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking reference of the document to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding. The said application was dismissed on the ground that during the course of evidence, P.W.1 expressed his willingness to pay the stamp duty and penalty, but on the next day, the present application is filed. The suit document is stated to be a possessory agreement of sale. The petitioners/plaintiffs made request to the Court to send the document to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding under the provisions of the Stamp Act. The fact that P.W.1 expressed in the evidence his willingness to pay the stamp duty and penalty, does not preclude the plaintiffs from bearing the statutory remedy of impounding of the document by the Stamp Collector. In fact, once such a request is made by the party for impounding of the document by the Stamp Collector and the application is filed for that purpose, the Court has to send the document to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding. 4. In a decision in CHINTHALAPUDI ANNAPURNAMMA V. ANDUKURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY[1], this Court held that ‘if the party instead of requiring the document to be admitted in evidence merely wants the Court to send it to the Collector to be dealt with under Section 40 the Court has no option but send it to the Collector as provided in Section 38(2)’. It is further held that ‘the Court cannot compel the party to pay duty and penalty and have it admitted in evidence’. 5. In a decision in G.RAMESH V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER[2] this Court held as follows: “In view of Sections 33, 35, 38 of Indian Stamp Act, when a document is produced into Court not duly stamped, the Court is bound to impound the same or spend it to the Collector for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty. In view of the same all the Presiding Officers of the Courts concerned are directed to take the following steps. (1) To ensure that the documents which are produced in the court and which are liable to stamp duty are properly stamped. (2) In case any document is not properly stamped that same shall be impounded and the Presiding Officer shall ensure that an endorsement on the document impounded is made by the Chief Ministerial Officer. (3) If a party produces a document in the Court which is insufficiently stamped and pays the penalty to the Court as required under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, the same shall be endorsed on the document. (4) Where a party requests to receive an insufficiently stamped document in evidence, the document shall not be received in evidence, unless, the party pays the required stamp duty and penalty (5) If the party requests the Court to send the document to the Collector, for collection of the stamp duty and penalty, the Court may consider such request and send the document to the Collector. If the stamp duty and penalty is not paid or insufficiently paid on a document produced into Court and no request is made to send the same to the Collector, such document shall not be returned to the party. The same shall be sent to the Collector for appropriate action.” 6. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and the application made by the party requesting the Court to send the document to the Stamp Collector for the purpose of impounding, the same has to be necessarily sent to the Stamp Collector and the Court cannot insist the party to pay the stamp duty and penalty as assessed by it. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th July, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2000(3) ALT 159 [2] 2006(6) ALT 476