THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3628 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.157 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration that the sale deed, dated 23.06.2005, executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent, is null and void. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioners intended to rely upon two documents, described as agreements of sale, marked as Exs.A.13 and A.14. The respondent raised an objection, as to the admissibility of those documents from the point of view of registration as well as payment of stamp duty. The trial Court sustained the objection. According to it, the contents of the documents suggest that they are sale deeds and that the stamp duty with penalty ten times the value must be paid. To this extent an order was passed, on 08.07.2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Peteti Subba Rao v. Anumala S.Narendra[1] and two judgments rendered by this Court in Y.Vijaya @ Vijaya Laxmi v. Bojja Baghaiah[2] and Mannaru Penchalaiah v. Patnam Venkamma[3]. Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, on the other hand, places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Marthala Ramachandra Reddy v. Mutyalapati Pedda Subbanna[4] and submits that the order under impugned does not warrant any interference. The documents in question are not those, which are assailed in the suit. There is no dispute as to the admissibility of the sale deed, dated 23.06.2005. It is only for the collateral purposes that the petitioners intended to rely upon two documents, which are already marked as Exs.A.13 and A.14. There is no denial of the fact that the documents were not properly stamped. Whenever the document is not properly stamped, two courses are open. The first is that the Court itself can impound the document by collecting deficit stamp duty as well as ten times penalty. The other course is to send the document to the Collector for necessary steps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. While it is obligatory on the part of the Court to impose penalty, the Collector has discretion to waive the penalty in its entirety or in part. In Mannaru Penchaliaha’s case (3 supra), this Court held so. When the petitioners want the documents to be sent to the Collector for necessary action, the Court cannot have any plausible objection. So far as the admissibility is concerned, much would depend upon the nature of steps, which the Collector may take. If the documents are impounded, they become admissible in evidence, at least for collateral purposes under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. If the Collector refuses to impound the documents, the basic infirmity as to admissibility remains and they cannot be received in evidence at all. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall send the documents, marked as Exs.A.13 to A.14, to the Collector, under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, for necessary steps. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.12.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ [1] (2002) 10 SCC 427 [2] 2004 ALT (4) 177 [3] 2008 ALT (4) 788 [4] 2006 (1) ALT 132