THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5610 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, 15.09.2009, in I.A.No.794 of 2008 in O.S.No.132 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the Act”), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to send the document i.e., hand receipt executed by the respondent/defendant, dated 04.01.1999, to Collector for collection of stamp duty and penalty, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the suit, which is filed for recovery of money. When the document i.e., hand receipt was sought to be marked on earlier occasion, the trial Court by order, dated 27.03.2008, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, held that the hand receipt issued by the respondent is a bond and directed the office to collect the stamp duty. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2403 of 2008 before this Court, whereunder, by order, dated 17.09.2008, the said revision petition was dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. Now, the present application is filed seeking to send the said hand receipt, dated 04.01.1999, to the District Collector, Nalgonda, for collection of stamp duty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle[1], wherein it is held thus: “It is clear from the first sub-section extracted above that the court has a power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. When the Court chooses to admit the document on compliance of such condition the Court need forward only a copy of the document to the Collector, together with the amount collected from the party for taking adjudicatory steps. But if the party refuses to pay the amount aforesaid the Collector has no other option except to impound the document and forward the same to the Collector. On receipt of the document through either of the said avenues the collector has to adjudicate on the question of the deficiency of the stamp duty. If the Collector is of the opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped "he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same together with a penalty of an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof."” The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Malla Satyanarayana v. Lanka Venkata Ramana and others[2], wherein it is held thus: “In the instant case, though the Court below referred the matter to the District Collector for impounding the document after collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 38(2) of the Act, the Collector refused to exercise his power vested in him under Section 40 of the Act for deciding the necessary quantum of penalty payable on the deficient payment of the stamp duty, which is illegal and against law. On such refusal by the District Collector in determining the quantum of penalty, the action of the Court in imposing a penalty of 10 times compulsorily payable by the party is also illegal and unsustainable.” Even from the above decisions, when a document is filed, it is for the Court to ascertain the stamp duty. If the document is insufficiently impounded, the Court can direct the party to pay the stamp duty and penalty as required under Section 33 of the Act. If the party feels that the penalty imposed is excessive, then he can make a request to the Court to send the document to District Collector under Section 38 (2) of the Act for determination of proper stamp duty payable on the document and thereafter, he is entitled for refund of the excess amount, if any. This remedy is already availed by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, namely, in C.R.P.No.2403 of 2008 against the order, dated 27.03.2008, in O.S.No.132 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, and that order has become final. In view of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2403 of 2008, dated 17.09.2008, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue once again. There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 11, 2009 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5610 OF 2009 Between: Shivakoti Kamakshamma .....PETITIONER AND Vangaveeti Venkateswarlu ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5610 OF 2009 March 11, 2009 [1] AIR 2001 SC 1321 [2] AIR 2003 AP 461