THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2297 OF 2010 DATED: 29-01-2011 Between: Shaik Dastagiri. .... PETITIONER And Vemuri Narayana & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24-02-2010, in I.A.No.3297 of 2009 in O.S.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Khammam District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) to send the subject-document, namely agreement of sale, dated 22-11-2004, to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of impounding, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 22-11-2004. At the time of trial, the respondents-defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.3297 of 2009 requesting the Court to send the document to the revenue authorities for impounding. The learned District Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the document was already impounded on 06-12-2007 and therefore the question of sending the same to the stamp collector again for impounding does sot arise. 4. It is to be seen that on 01-04-2007, the Administrative Officer made an endorsement to the effect that as per the recitals the document is an agreement of sale and it ought to have been executed on the stamp paper worth Rs.56,200/- as required under Article 6 (B) of the Act, but it was executed only on a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- He, therefore, endorsed that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.56,150/-, together with ten times penalty of Rs.5,61,500/- totaling Rs.6,17,650/-, is liable to be paid. The presiding officer of the Court is said to have made an endorsement to the effect of impounding the document on 06-12-2007. The said endorsement does not contain the stamp or seal of the presiding officer and no separate order is also passed directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty nor any such order is communicated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is not aware of the said endorsements made by the Administrative Officer or the presiding officer of the Court as he was not communicated with any such order, directing him to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The record also does not disclose that any order was to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff or it was communicated to him. Petitioner, therefore, makes a request to send the document to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding the same. 5. It is well settled that when a party makes a request to the Court to send the document to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding, the Court cannot refuse such request. The only ground on which the request was refused by the learned District Judge was that the document was already impounded. As already stated, there is no direction to the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, as assessed by the Court. No such order was passed nor communicated to the petitioner. In the absence of any such communication and in the absence of any material to show that the said order was passed to the knowledge of the petitioner, the request of the petitioner to send the document to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding, cannot be rejected on the ground that the document was already impounded. 6. In the circumstances of the case, it is considered that opportunity be given to the petitioner to send the disputed document to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding the same and assessment of proper stamp duty and penalty. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The learned District Judge is directed to send the document, dated 22-11-2004, to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding the same and assessment of stamp duty and penalty. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim stay granted on 09-06-2010 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th January, 2011. Tsy