JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., arising under the following circumstances: Certain persons filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that a deed dated 5th December 1938, executed by a Hindu widow in favour of her daughter and the latter's three sons and daughter, was null and void and of no legal effect against the interest of the plaintiffs who alleged themselves to be the reversioners of the property covered by the deed. The document was engrossed with a stamp duty of Rs. 7-8-0 presumably as a release under Article 55, Stamp Act. The Civil Judge admitted the document in evidence. The Inspector of Stamps, however, reported to the District Judge that the deed was insufficiently stamped as it was not a deed of release but that it was a conveyance which should have been stamped under Article 23, Stamp Act. The learned District Judge accepted the report and held that the document should not have been admitted in evidence without the payment of duty and penalty under Section 35 as it did not answer the definition of a release under Article 55 of the Act and that the amount of duty chargeable was Rs. 72-8-0. According to this order the applicant was liable to pay Rs. 715 including the penalty. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has come up in revision to this Court. The application is opposed by the learned Assistant Government Advocate on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Fyzabad.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that this revision petition is not maintainable, as the learned District Judge in passing the order in question did not act as a Court or a civil Court subordinate to this Court. A reference has been made in support of this contention to Manavala Goundan v. Kumarappa Reddy, (1907) 30 Mad. 326, A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 475 Naganna Nayudu v. Pattabhiramayya, A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 475 and Deputy Commissioner, Partabgarh v. Ram Harakh, A.I.R. 1926 Oud 397 In the two Madras cases, the order in question was one passed by the District Registrar acting under the Registration Act. These cases have, therefore, no relevancy to the present case. The Oudh case does not deal with this point at all. All that was held in that ease was that when an application under Section 61 is made by the Collector to the revision Court, no notice to the person liable is required to be issued. Although learned Counsel for the applicant has complained that the order was passed by the learned District Judge behind his back and without any notice to him, he has not urged that the order on that account is void.

3. Chapter 6, Stamp Act, is headed as "Reference and Revision." There are only six sections in this chapter, Sections 56 to 61. Section 56 deals with the powers of a Collector in case of a doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, to make a reference to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which is no other than the Board of Revenue in this province. Section 57 empowers the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make a reference in such a case to the respective High Courts in India in which such a question may arise. Section 57(1)(e) says that if the question arises in Oudh, it will be referred to the Chief Court. Section 58 refers to the power of the High Court or Chief Court to call for further particulars as to case stated. Section 59 deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Courts in disposing of the case referred to them. Section 60 empowers any Court other than a Court mentioned in Section 57, in case of a similar doubt as to the amount of duty to be paid in respect of any instrument, to draw up a statement of the case and refer it for decision of the High Court, Chief Court or Judicial Commissioner's Court, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 60 lays down that such Court shall deal with the case as if it had been referred under Section 57. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 lays down that references mad