Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner was the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 379 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Changanacherry. The suit was one for realisation of a loan amount from defendants 1 to 3. The petitioner was an assignee of the ice plant which belonged to the first defendant in the suit. Evidencing the above assignment the petitioner produced a document styling itself as an assignment deed. The above instrument was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 3/-. The above document, though produced by the petitioner, was not either tendered in evidence or marked as exhibit. The petitioner was also not examined. The suit was finally decreed against defendants 1 to 3 and dismissed against the petitioner. The learned Munsiff passed an order stating that a stamp duty of Rs. 1,787/- was pay able along with penalty of Rs. 17,870/-. The third respondent was directed to realise the above amount. When the third respondent took action pursuance to the order of Munsiff Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. The first respondent forwarded the revision petition before the second respondent and the second respondent in turn referred the matter to the third respondent for decision. 2. The third respondent by Ext. P1 order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,787/ - as stamp duty and Rs. 5,361/- as penalty. The petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent which was dismissed by Ext. P2 order. Aggrieved by Exts. P1 and P2 the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent which was also dismissed by Ext. P4. 3. Sri. N. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the action of the learned Munsiff in directing to levy stamp duty and penalty is without any jurisdiction. Unless the document in question was tendered in evidence by way of marking as an exhibit the Court cannot levy any penalty for insufficiency of stamp duty. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note various provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act with regard to the impounding of document and imposition of penalty. According to S.3 3 of the Kerala Stamp Act, every person who has authority to receive evidence under law before whom any instrument is produced shall impound the same if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. According to S.3 3 of the Kerala Stamp Act, every person who has authority to receive evidence under law before whom any instrument is produced shall impound the same if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. According to S.34, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped. S.35 states that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be questioned at any stage of any suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Under S.37, the person impounding an instrument under S.33 shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of the instrument with a certificate stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect of the instrument. 4. The learned counsel relied on decision of this Court reported in Chanda Pilled v. Munsiff, Thiruvalla & Ors. (1975 KLT 753) to contend that as long as an instrument is not admitted in evidence, the Munsiff s Court has no jurisdiction to levy any penalty or charge any duty on the same. In the above case, the petitioner therein who was the plaintiff in the civil suit relied on an 'assignment deed which was insufficiently stamped. The document was not marked in evidence. But the learned Munsiff impounded the document and made a requisition to the District Collector to recover the amount of stamp duty and penalty. Dealing with the above contention Justice Chandrasekhara Menon held as follows: "As long as an instrument is not admitted in evidence, the Munsiff though he may have impounded the same has no jurisdiction to levy any penalty or charge any duty on the same. The question whether the Munsiff should not under sub-s.(2) of S.37 by which every person impounding an instrument has to send it in original to the Collector, depends upon the answer to the question whether the case is one which can come within the description of every other case mentioned therein. Every other case means every case other than the cases mentioned in sub-s.(1) of S.37. Among cases mentioned therein is the case of a person impounding an instrument under S.33 who has by law authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of penalty as provided by the proviso to S.34. Every other case means every case other than the cases mentioned in sub-s.(1) of S.37. Among cases mentioned therein is the case of a person impounding an instrument under S.33 who has by law authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of penalty as provided by the proviso to S.34. It is only when the case is different from the one mentioned therein that an occasion will arise for a Civil Court to act under sub-s.2. Ordinarily, the duty or power of assessing the amount of stamp duty or collecting stamp duty and penalties is invested by the Act in the Collector. The proviso to S.34 invests courts with the special jurisdiction of adjudicating upon stamp duty and imposing penalty in certain cases and those are cases where a party to a litigation before the court tenders a document in evidence. In the instant case, as the documents have not been admitted in evidence no question of imposition of stamp duty by the Munsiff arises. He could have acted only under S.37(2) by which he is to send the documents to the Collector who then can proceed to stamp the instruments concerned and collect the required duty and penalty if any from the person or persons who are liable to pay the same." 5. The counter affidavit takes the stand that as per S.33(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the Munsiff is competent to impound a document that is insufficiently stamped and forward the same for adjudication. I do not think that the Munsiff has really jurisdiction to impound any document which comes into his possession. Only the document which is either relied on by the parties for proving the case or admitted in evidence by marking as exhibit is liable to be impounded by the Court. Merely because a document was filed in Court (and when the same was not either proved in evidence or acted upon by any of the parties) the Munsiff cannot order impounding the document or imposing any penalty for insufficiency of the stamp duty. The principle seems to be that a party to the litigation cannot escape the liability of payment of the stamp duty under the law whenever he wants to rely on the document in order to prove his case. The principle seems to be that a party to the litigation cannot escape the liability of payment of the stamp duty under the law whenever he wants to rely on the document in order to prove his case. Therefore, according to me, the respondents as well as the Munsiff were wrong in impounding the document and directing recovery of the stamp duty and penalty from We petitioner. Therefore, I quash Exts. P1, P2 and P4. The Original Petition is allowed.