Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. The defendants, who are the appellants, before the Court below are the revision petitioners. Challenging the order passed by the appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by them under Section 38 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in I.A. No. 42 of 2015 in A.S. No. 14 of 2013, seeking a direction to impound Ex.B1 and collect stamp duty with reasonable penalty and to certify the same in Ex.B1, has preferred this revision.

2. The case of the revision petitioners is that, the respondents herein filed a suit seeking partition of the suit scheduled property based on a family arrangement. The written family arrangement, known as Koor Chit was marked as Ex.B1 on their side and the same was marked subject to objection.

However, it is stated that the trial court has not framed any issue qua the admissibility of Ex.B1 but had given a finding that the same was inadmissible in evidence, since the same was not duly stamped. Since Ex.B1 is a family arrangement, it need not be stamped and registered as the same is evidencing partition.

According to the defendants/petitioners, Ex.B1 having been marked and admitted in evidence, shall not be called in question at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. However, the trial court has held that Ex.B1 is inadmissible in evidence, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the defendants have preferred an appeal and pending appeal, the above application was filed to collect stamp duty with reasonable penalty and certify Ex.B1 to make it admissible in evidence.

3. The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs, who are the respondents in appeal, contending that the application itself is misconceived and the same is not maintainable as per Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [in short 'the Act']. It is further stated that though the argument in the appeal was over, as the learned District Judge, who reserved the orders was transferred before the pronouncement of the judgment, the appellant is said to have taken advantage of the situation and filed such an application. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the same.

4. After considering the submissions on either side, the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, by stating that once the judgment is delivered, the Court, which had become functus officio, cannot reopen the matter and impound the document. Further, it is stated that since the document has already been received in evidence and marked as Ex.B1 by the trial court, the present application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present revision.

5. The legal issue involved in the present revision is with respect to the powers of the trial court insofar as the unstamped document is concerned, which was refused to be admitted in evidence by the trial court.

6. The document in dispute is a Koor Chit. The revision petitioners, who are the defendants, while resisting the suit for partition filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, had marked the said document, as Ex.B1. The same was marked in the trial court subject to objections by the respondents herein. Despite the objections raised by the respondents, the document was received in evidence as Ex.B1, but the trial court did not consider the same while delivering the judgment as the same was not properly stamped and held it as inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants while filing an appeal in A.S. No. 14 of 2013 on the file of the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai had filed I.A. No. 42 of 2015 seeking to impound the document and to collect the stamp duty with penalty. The maintainability of the same is now under consideration.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the Court while adjudicating the admissibility of Ex.B1 failed to exercise its powers and the jurisdiction vested with it under Section 33 of the Act. Further, relying upon Section 36 of the Act, t