( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the District Munsif of Kodada in LA. No. 125/96 in O. S. No. 34/92 on an application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act wherein the District Munsif refused to forward the document in question to the R. D. O. for impounding and levied ten times penalty under the impression, that this Court directed him to do so while disposing of CRP No. 3769/95 dated 28-12-1995, the present Revision petition is filed.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac 2-00 of land for a consideration of Rs. 64,000/- under an agreement of sale executed on five rupee stamp paper on 28-5-1989 from one Nalajala tulisamma. But the vendor without executing a regular sale deed filed O. S. No. 877/89 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodada for a permanent injunction and failed to get a temporary injunction. In those circumstances, the vendor executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent on 26-1-1990 and on the basis of that sale deed the respondent filed the present suit O. S. No. 34/92 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner.

( 3 ) AT the time of trial, on an objection taken by the respondent with regard to admissibility of the document by contending that the document being a regular sale deed the same is inadmissible in evidence as it was not properly stamped. The petitioner contended that it is only an agreement of sale but not a regular sale deed. By order dated 30-10-1995, the Trial Court held that it is a sale deed and directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty within ten days from the date of the order.

( 4 ) QUESTIONING the said orders, the petitioner filed CRP No. 3769/95. After hearing the arguments on both, sides, by order dt: 28-12-1995 I held that the document has to be treated as an agreement of sale and the evidentiary value of the document has to be considered by the Court below by treating the same as an agreement of sale. Having decided the nature of the document on the other question with regard to payment of stamp duty in the light of sec. 47-A in Schedule I-A issued under the first proviso to Sec. 3 of the Indian stamp Act in the end of the judgment the following observation is made: further under Sec 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, a document can be received by impounding required stamp duty plus penalty to the extent of ten times and the order of the Court below did not specify the penalty that was levied on the document. The Court below shall pass an order with regard to penalty levied on the document.

( 5 ) AFTER disposal of the CRP, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 125/96 under sec. 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act requesting the Court to send the document to the R. D. O. for purpose of assessing and collecting stamp duty and penalty. The Trial Court by its order Dt: 4-5-1996 on misinterpretation of my order came to the conclusion that this Court directed him to levy ten times penalty and if the document is sent to the Collector at this stage it amounts to violation of the orders of the High Court referred supra. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the present revision by contending that this Court never directed the Trial Court to levy penalty by ten times. Mr. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehimently contested the claim of the petitioner by contending that having presented the document in the court to receive it as an evidence and submitted the same to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court he cannot turn round and contend that the document should be sent to the Collector for impounding and levying penalty. Under sec. 35 (1) (a), the Court cannot impose a penalty less than ten times. Hence the Trial Court is perfectly justified in levying penalty by ten times over the deficit portion of the duty payable on the instrument. I am afraid I cannot agree with the contention raised by the Tespondent s counsel. First of all I would like to cl