N. Kumar, J.

1. The defendant No. 1 has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court declining to impound and levy duty and penalty on three documents which are alleged to be insufficiently stamped.

2. The plaintiff-Vijaya Bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants. Defendants filed the written statement and contested the claim. Issues were framed. The case was posted for evidence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff examined PW 1. Through him, they got the documents marked. Ex. P6 is a declaration and indemnity executed by defendants, Ex. P7 - letter evidencing deposit of title deeds and Ex. P9 - letter of guarantee. As PW 1 was not cross-examined by the defendants, his evidence was closed. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 filed I.A. 7 to recall PW 1, I.A. 8 to summon the Manager of the plaintiff-bank, I.A. 9 to summon the survey reports on different dates and I.A. 10 under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act') requesting the Court to impound the documents which are insufficiently stamped and to impose duty and penalty. In this case, we are concerned with I.A. 10 filed under Section 34