The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments; it is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of Sri Kaushal Kishore. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Member, Board of Revenue. U. P. , Allahabad dated 13-6-1984, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, one Sheo Dulare Srivastava, an Arbitrator filed the award regarding partition of immoveable property belonging to the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 and prayed for making the award a rule of Court. The prayer of the Arbitrator was rejected by the Civil Judge as is evident from the order dated 18-3-1976 in Civil Suit No. 76 of 1973 contained in Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition. The Civil Judge passed the following order:-"application for making award rule of the Court is rejected. Objections of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed. It is made clear that award is vitiated for want of compulsory registration and proper stamp duty same is impounded. Let the award be sent to Collector for necessary action. "

( 3 ) THE judgment of the Civil Judge has been upheld by the highest Court of this country. It appears that the petitioner filed an application on 8-9-1981 for adjudication of stamp duty. On 15-7-1983 the Collector has passed the following order :-"prarthi Sri Maheshwar Dayal dwara prastut prarthana sweekar karate huye aadesh diya jata hai ki nyayalaya Civil Judge, Sitapur se mool award mangaya jaye. Usme varnit sampatti ka mulyankan karaya jaye. Tadanusar kami stamps evam penalty ka nirdharan kiya jaye. Patrawali 3-8-83 ko prastut ho. "

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Collector. the contesting opposite party Neelkantheswar Dayal, now represented by opposite party No. 4 in the present writ petition, had filed a revision petition under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act which was allowed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority through his judgment dated 13-6-1984. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and it should be quashed. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the officer concerned has patently erred in observing that the whole exercise has started with multiple misconceptions and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the observations made by the learned Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are wholly unjustified and unwarranted. It has been emphasised that the Collector was within his power to pass the order dated 15-7-1983, contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ petition and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has patently erred in interfering with the order of the Collector.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment. He has contended that substantial justice has been done in the present case and the petitioner has no right or interest in getting determination of the stamp duty on the award and, therefore, no interference should be made with the impugned judgment of the revisional Court. It is well known that futile writs need not be issued in view of the rulings reported in K. N. Guru Swamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592, Mahesh Chandra v. Tara Chand Modi, AIR 1958 All 374 (FB ). It has also been submitted that duty and penalty can be realised only when after payment of such duty the document can be validated. In this connection, he has relied upon the ruling reported in Indurthi Srinivasa Rao v. Indurthi Venkata Narasimha Rao, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 193. The third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties is to the effect that the award has not been held as a valid document for want of stamp duty and registration. Therefore, it is not an instrument within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act.

( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel