JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,75,758.79 with future interest and costs, against defendants No.1 to 5. Basis of the suit was an agreement dated 13.4.1982 whereunder the predecessor in interest of plaintiff No.1 assigned its rights to recover Rs. 3,13,070.54 along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from defendants No.1 to 4, for which defendant No.5 stood guarnator. Defendants took the plea that the document on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- was not enough and it was a Conveyance Deed and therefore, ad valorem stamp duty was payable. Objection of the defendants prevailed with the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 6.1.1994 directed the plaintiffs to make good the stamp duty of Rs. 40,794/- and to pay penalty at 10 times thereof. This is revision against that order. 2. The so called agreement dated 13.4.92 is before me as a photo stat copy of it has been provided by the counsel for the defendants. A reading of the document shows that M/s. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (rights of which have now vested in M/s. Texmaco Limited, plaintiff No.1, by virtue of an order passed by the Company Judge, Delhi High Court) were the manufacturers of cloth and M/s. Textile Trading Co., plaintiff No.2 were the sole selling agents of Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills (in short 'Mills'). The cloth manufactured by the Mills was sold to M/s. Ghanshyam Das Sanjay Kumar, a partnership firm, of which defendants No.2 to 4 are partners, through the agency of agents and certain amounts were due from M/s. Ghanshyam Das Sanjay Kumar (debtors) through the agents and how the payment was to be made or recovered, that matter was settled by the agreement. In the agreement it was agreed by the debtors that a sum of Rs. 3,13,070.54 including interest as on the date of the agreement, was due from them to the company. In the agreement it was agreed by the debtors that a sum of Rs. 3,13,070.54 including interest as on the date of the agreement, was due from them to the company. Para 2 provided that the aforesaid amount would be recoverable by agents and the Company assigned all its rights and interest in the said amount in favour of the Agents, to demand, claim, realise and recover from the debtors and the debtors agreed to pay the said amount to the Agents together with interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the agreement, and in consideration of the same, the Company shall not recover the said amount from the debtors which shall now be recoverable by the Agents in their own name from the debtors together with interest. 3. To secure payments, on behalf of the debtors, a bank guarantee was furnished by Smt. Malti Devi, wife of one of the partner of the debtors' firm. 4. Caluse 7 of the agreement provided as under: "That the stamp duty of this agreement has been paid by the debtors. In case of any penalty regarding deficit stamp duty, it shall be payable by the debtors as and when the same is required and payable." 5. Trial court found that the Mill had assigned its rights in the amount due from the debtors to the Agents and this assignment amounted to conveyance, therefore, ad valorem stamp duty was payable. The trial court was also influenced by Clause 7 of the agreement and concluded that the parties knew that the stamp duty paid was less and that is why this Clause 7 was added in the agreement. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction in treating the document as a conveyance instead of an agreement. Cloth was manufactured by the Mills and the Agents were the sole selling agents for sale of their cloth and the cloth manufactured by the Mills was sold by the sole selling agents to the debtors. Technically, the amount was due from the debtors to the Company through the agency of the Agents but the Mills and the Agents arrived at an agreement to authorise the Agents alone to recover the amount from the debtors. Technically, the amount was due from the debtors to the Company through the agency of the Agents but the Mills and the Agents arrived at an agreement to authorise the Agents alone to recover the amount from the debtors. This agreement between the Mills and the Agents had been made to give an authority to the Agents to recover the amount from the debtors. There is no consideration for making conveyance of the amount due from the debtors at the instance of the Mills in favour of the Agents. Therefore, I read the agreement to mean that the Mills assigned their right to recover amount from the debtors to the Agents and it was an internal arrangement between the Mills and the Agents as to how the amount is to be adjusted between them. 7. Accordingly, I hold that the assignment was not a conveyance and the matter was covered by Article 5(C) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Stamp (Adaptation) Act, 1952, whereunder stamp duty of Rs. 5/- was payable and since stamp duty of Rs. 5/- was paid on the agreement, that was sufficient. 8. Certain paras of the agreement would amount to acknowledgement also wherein the debtors have acknowledged and confirmed that a sum of Rs. 3,13,070.54 is payable to the Company. Payment of interest at the rate of 16% per annum may also be treated as an acknowledgement/agreement. But if we advert to Article-I of the Act of 1952, stamp duty of Rs. 1/- is payable. If acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay, then Article-I will apply but if there is promise to pay, then Article-5 will apply and instead of Rs. 1/- Rs. 5/- stamp duty would be payable. In this case, besides acknowledgement of amount due and the interest payable, there is an agreement to pay and therefore, Rs. 5/- stamp duty is payable and it would not be a case where Rs. 5/- plus Rs. 1/- would be payable. 9. The next reasoning of the court below is totally misplaced. I have seen numerous documents and when documents by big companies are got prepared, there is always a clause like Clause-7 as is in this case, that in case the duty or fees etc. are paid less, in that case, they fix the liability of the person to make good that amount. I have seen numerous documents and when documents by big companies are got prepared, there is always a clause like Clause-7 as is in this case, that in case the duty or fees etc. are paid less, in that case, they fix the liability of the person to make good that amount. From that, no inference can be drawn that the parties knew that the stamp duty paid was less. 10. Accordingly, I upset both the reasonings of the court below and hold that the document in dispute is only an agreement and not a conveyance deed and the stamp duty paid thereon is proper. 11. I may also note the argument raised on behalf of the respondents that revision is not maintainable as there is interpretation of document involved. I am not in an agreement with the learned counsel. After the amendment of Section 115 CPC in the year 1976, if it is seen that an illegal order will cause mainfest injustice, the court is bound to interfere. In this case, direction to pay over Rs. 4.5 lacs by way of stamp duty and penalty would certainly cause prejudice to the plaintiff because if this huge amount is not paid the very basis of the suit will be knocked down and the suit will be dismissed. Accordingly, I find that revision is maintainable and the judgments cited by the defendants are distinguishable on facts. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I allow the revision, set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******