C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money due on the basis of a bond said to have been executed by the respondent/defendant. During the course of inspection of the Trial Court by the District Judge, he observed that the suit document which should have been as a deed conveyance, is not so stamped, and so he directed the Trial Court to collect proper stamp duty and penalty thereon. The trial Court on hearing the Counsel for the revision petitioner, issued a show-cause notice to the revision petitioner to pay rs. 10,340/- i. e. , Rs. 940. 00 towards stamp duty and Rs. 9,400. 00 towards ten times penalty at the pain of attachment of his property or his being sent to jail for default. Hence this revision questioning the said show-cause notice.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner, relying on Peteti Subbarao v. Anumala Narendra, (2002) 10 SCC 427, contended that the Court below erred in directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty as fixed by it, without sending the document to the Collector for determination of the stamp duty and penalty as contemplated by Section 40 of the Stamp act.

( 3 ) THE procedure adopted by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document