THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3389 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 02.02.2006 in I.A.No.1 of 2006 in O.S.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, in allowing the application filed under Schedule 1-A, Rule 31 of the Law of Stamp Duty and Registration Act and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to send the lease agreement to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer), Gudivada, for collection of toll dated 05.04.2000 and to impound the same by collecting proper amounts. After contest, no doubt almost extracting in detail the rival cases and the pleas and briefly restricting into one or two lines in paras-4 to 8, the Court below normally referred to the point for consideration as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed in the petition in para-6. Further, para-7 of the said order reads as under. “After hearing both sides and perusing the petition and counter, it is noticed that the lease agreement dated 05.04.2000 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant has to be sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudivada, to inform the same for collecting the proper deficit stamp fees from the defendant in the interest of justice.” With the above observation, the petition was allowed. Hence, the revision. The main submission made by Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that either way the liability of the stamp duty to be payable or any penalty thereof does not arise as per Section 35 (e) of the Stamp Act, 1899 {“the Act” for brevity}, and further, even where it is held that such liability exists, difference cannot be directed to be paid or discharged by the defendant, since the document is produced by the respondent-plaintiff. There is no serious dispute in regard to the chequered events. The document is forthcoming on behalf of the respondent in the aforesaid event and admittedly, no stamp duty needs to be paid nor it warrants any such collection, much less impounding. For convenience sake, Section 35 (e) of the Act is extracted below, which reads as under. “Nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by order on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Section 32 or any other provisions of this Act.” From the above, it is clear that all the documents executed by or on behalf of the Government does not call for any stamp duty or making liable for penalty much less impounding as such. Therefore, the very application filed in the Court below to send the document is totally not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is to be made clear that as and when the Court comes to a conclusion about such liability, it could be imposed only as against the person who produced the document or wants to place reliance therein but not against the contesting respondent or parties. For the aforesaid reasons, the very order is liable to be set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 02.02.2006 in I.A.No.1 of 2006 in O.S.No.122 of 2005 is set aside. The Court below is directed to proceed with the case on merits in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the marked document only shall be taken into consideration in regard to evidence. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 12th August 2010 RRB