ORDER K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The order under challenge is one by which the court below has found that the document, based on which the suit is instituted, is a bond and not an agreement and hence the plaintiff is liable to pay stamp duty under Art.13 of The Kerala Stamp Act. However, only a sum of Rs. 3/- has been paid as stamp duty treating the document as an agreement. The court below therefore has held as follows:- "Since the instrument is a bond, plaintiff has to pay stamp duty as per Art.13 of the Kerala Stamp Act. For Rs. 10,000/- he has to pay Rs. 250/- as stamp duty. Already he has paid Rs. 3/-. Then he needs to pay only Rs. 247/- as deficit stamp duty. As per S.34(a) of Kerala Stamp Act, he has to pay its 10 times penalty. Hence he has to pay Rs. 2470/- as penalty. Totally he has to pay Rs. 2717/- as deficit stamp duty and penalty. Hence the document is impounded as per S.33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, and the plaintiff is directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 247/- and penalty of Rs. 2470/- to this office. For deposit to 1-3-88". 3. I shall now consider the ambit of S.33 of The Kerala Stamp Act. Sub-section (1) thereof is relevant in the context. It provides that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an Officer of Police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion; with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. The words in this Section that require special mention are "is produced or comes in the performance of his functions". The insufficiently stamped document in order to be impounded under S.33, therefore must be one which had been produced or had come in the performance of the function of the persons or authorities mentioned in the sub-section . The phrase "in the performance of his functions" in the context is meaningful. The insufficiently stamped document in order to be impounded under S.33, therefore must be one which had been produced or had come in the performance of the function of the persons or authorities mentioned in the sub-section . The phrase "in the performance of his functions" in the context is meaningful. The document, in order to find that it has been produced or has come in the performance of the functions of the authority concerned in my judgement, must be one, the party concerned has taken steps to tender in evidence. A more production of the document cannot therefore be said to be a production within the meaning of that phrase, because, the party who has produced the document, has every right to take the same back before steps to tender it formally in evidence are taken. It is relevant in this context to refer to S.34 of The Stamp Act also. This section says that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law, or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. This section thus prohibits admission in evidence of instruments chargeable with duty unless they are duly stamped. Similarly they cannot be acted upon or registered or authenticated unless, again, such instruments are duly stamped. 4. The cumulative effect of these sections is that the question as to whether or not an instrument chargeable with duty, has however, been insufficiently stamped, in so far as court proceedings or proceedings akin thereto are concerned, comes up for consideration, only when the party concerned takes steps to tender the said document in evidence. The court. has then and only then the power to consider whether the document has been duly stamped. To put it differently, more production of the document in contradistinction to tender the document in evidence, is not sufficient to impound the document chargeable with duty, however insufficiently stamped. Investigation to decide the issue whether the document is liable to be impounded under S.33 thus cannot be had until it is tendered in evidence although the document had in the meantime been produced before the authority concerned. Investigation to decide the issue whether the document is liable to be impounded under S.33 thus cannot be had until it is tendered in evidence although the document had in the meantime been produced before the authority concerned. The Lahore High Court in the decisions a in Ujjal Singh Sunder Singh v. Ahmed Yer Khan (AIR 1936 Lahore 985) and Harjimal & Sons v. H. S. Palta & Sons (AIR 1947 Lahore 319), has expressed the same view. 5. It is in this background, the case on hand requires to be considered. It is clear from the findings discernible from the order under attack that the concerned party has not so far taken any step to tender the document formally in evidence, although the concerned party had produced the same alongwith the plaint. That means, the order impounding the document at this stage is not sustainable in law. The order accordingly is set aside. It is made clear that the question whether or not the document is liable to be impounded under S.33 accordingly, is left open. The C.R.P. accordingly is allowed. No costs.