Dixit C.J.

l. The circumstances in which this application under article 226 of the Constitution has been filed are that in the course of proceedings under Order 38, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code Haji Abdul Hamid, the petitioner filed an objection to the attachment made, and in support of the objection tiled a document to show that the attached property belonged to him. The Additional District Judge, Satna, who was trying the suit, impounded the document treating it as 'conveyance deed' and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 496-12-0 as stamp duty on the document and penalty of Rs. 4,967-8-0. The petitioner did not pay the stamp duty or the penalty levied. The Additional District Judge sent the document to Collector for recovery of the amount of duty and penalty imposed by him. The suit in which the petitioner objected to the attachment was settled between the parties. Consequently, the objection having become in fructuous was rejected.

2. When the document was received by the Collector from the Additional District Judge, Satna, the petitioner filed objections in writing contending that the instrument was not chargeable as a 'conveyance'; that it was at the most a 'receipt';