Anand Byrareddy, J

Heard the Counsel for the parties.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. He had sought to produce the agreement of sale, which was the subject matter of the suit. The agreement had been executed on stamp paper of inadequate value. The petitioner had therefore paid the difference of stamp duty on the agreement just before filing the suit. The respondents who had not filed their written statement however, filed an interlocutory application seeking that the said document be impounded. The lower Court having held that though the requisite stamp duty has been paid on the document, -by making good the short-fall, before filing of the suit the document could not be impounded but has opined that the petitioner is bound to pay penalty on the same as duty is paid belatedly. It is this that is sought to be challenged in this petition.

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below has misinterpreted the scope of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). It is contended that the Court could impose penalty only when