Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7-4-75, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Badnawar, in Civil Suit No. 84 of 1953 whereby the final decree for partition which was prepared on an ordinary paper was ordered to be supplied with the requisite stamp duty. 2. The objection of the applicant judgment-debtor is that the decree for partition having been prepared on unstamped paper, it was not executable and that it could not be validated by affixing the stamps at a later stage. It is also contended that under the proviso to section 35 of the Stamp Act, the Court could not accept the stamp duty without imposing the penalty as prescribed. 3. Held : The above contentions have no force. In Jogesh Chandra Bandopadhya and another v. Mohini Mohan Ghose and others, AIR 1935 Calcutta, 125 it was held that where a dacree was not drawn up on a non-judicial stamp paper and on the order of the Court a non-judicial stamp paper was annexed and was defaced and the names of the parties and the cause title of the case was put down, the decree was entirely in order with retrospective effect from the date when it was drawn up and could be executed. In Rajatam Parashram v. Madhava Murar and others (AIR 1953 MB, 47) the view taken was that where a Court has drawn up a partition decree without the proper stamp, it should be deemed that there is definitely a decree but not a decree that could be acted upon until proper stamp was supplied and that the decree could be validated by the addition of proper stamp. The same view was taken by the Lahore High Court in Gopi Mal v. Vidya Wanti (AIR 1942 Lahore, 260) in which it was further observed that the proceedings prior to the validation of the decree by affixing the proper stamp would be without jurisdiction and they will have to be taken afresh. In the instant case no effective steps were taken to execute the final decree before affixing the proper stamp. 4. In the instant case no effective steps were taken to execute the final decree before affixing the proper stamp. 4. As regards the second objection that, while validating the decree by supplying the proper stamp, the Court could not exempt the penalty which was required 'to be paid on account of the omission to prepare the decree on the stamp paper, it may be pointed out that the provision of charging an instrument with duty and penalty is made in the proviso to section 35 of the stamp Act with respect to a case when the instrument is required to be admitted in evidence for any purpose. It is quite obvious that in execution proceedings the decree sought to be executed is not required to be admitted in evidence. According to section 35 of the Stamp Act an instrument charge. able with duty cannot be admitted in evidence or acted upon unless such instrument is duly stamped. As a partition decree chargeable with duty is required to be acted upon it can be validated by supplying the proper stamp without imposing any penalty. Revision dismissed.