( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16-08-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, allowing the application in I. A. No. 101 of 2003 in R. C. C. No. 23 of 2002, filed under sections 33 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity "the Stamp Act) seeking to send an unregistered document to the competent authority for the purpose of impounding and levying stamp duty and penalty.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed R. C. C. No. 23 of 2002 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as "the landlord" and "the tenant" respectively.

( 5 ) THE tenant along with the counter filed the document under controversy, which is said to be a memorandum of partition deed. But, the said document, admittedly, is an unregistered and xerox copy of the original document. The original document has not been filed before the Court below.

( 6 ) AT the threshold of the enquiry in the rent Control Proceedings, the tenant filed the present application in I. A. No. 101 of 2003 seeking to send the document in controversy to the competent authority to impound and to levy appropriate stamp duty, if necessary, along with the penalty.

( 7 ) THE said application had been opposed by the landlord on the sole ground that since the document in dispute was only a xerox copy, the Court cannot simply allow the said application and send the document to the competent authority under the Stamp act.

( 8 ) IN other words it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord that inasmuch as the document in dispute is not an instrument, under sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act, the Court cannot, rather need not, permit the tenant to have it transmitted to the competent authority under the Stamp Act for levying the stamp duty and thereby getting it validated for the purpose of admissibility in evidence.

( 9 ) THE Court below, however, allowed the said application and ordered to transmit the document in dispute to the competent authority i. e. , the Revenue Divisional Officer, kurnool, for impounding and levying the stamp duty. Hence, the present Civil revision Petition.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord places reliance on the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of this Court in Akkam Laxmi v. Thosha Bhoomaiah, wherein it was observed as under:"a combined reading of both the sections would show that what was not admissible under the mandatory provisions of Section 35 when admitted inadvertently in evidence without taking any objection in that regard, such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings subsequently. Therefore, what Section 36 speaks of, in my considered view, is in regard to the original document itself. A combined reading of Sections 35 of 36 of the Act and the definition of instrument as enjoined under Section 2 (14) of the Act would leave no room for any doubt that what is required to be stamped is the original instrument itself and the Act has not envisaged a copy of the original for the purpose of Stamp Act. A copy of the document cannot be called as an instrument and, therefore, it is not required to be stamped. "

( 11 ) FROM the above, it is to be seen that the view of the learned single Judge of this court based on the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Jupudi v. Pulavarthi is clear to the effect that the document in dispute is not an instrument as envisaged under Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act and that it is only the original instrument that is required to be stamped or impounded either for the purpose of impounding and levying the stamp duty along with penalty by the court itself or upon an application made by the person who tries to introduce such document in evidence, to send the same to the competent authority under the Stamp Act for