( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) A document was produced by the appellant in a suit which is now pending before the trial court. As the document was found to be falling within Explanation 1 of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp act (for short "the Act") as amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the trial court passed an order, the operative portion of which reads thus:"accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons it is held that the agreement of sale dated 7-9-1992 is exigible to stamp duty as a sale under the Explanation to Article 47-A in Schedule 1-A to the Stamp Act and the point is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant. Admittedly, the agreement of sale is not stamped as required by the explanation to Article 47-A in Schedule 1-A to the Stamp Act. The office is therefore directed to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the suit agreement of sale dated 7-9-1992 treating it as a sale on a total consideration of Rs 16,50,000 mentioned in the agreement in accordance with Section 35 of the Stamp Act and issue a demand to the plaintiffs of the same. The plaintiffs shall deposit such stamp duty and penalty within a month from the date of receipt of the demand failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. Further if the plaintiffs default in payment of stamp duty and penalty the office shall send the suit agreement of sale to the Collector concerned under the provisions of the stamp Act for realisation of the same from the plaintiffs. This petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs. " ( 3 ) THE appellant moved the High Court in challenge of the said order but the High Court dismissed the revision petition on the premise that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. It is the said order which is under appeal now. ( 4 ) MR M. N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant first attempted to show that the document concerned would not fall within the purview of the aforesaid Explanation I of Article 47-A. On a perusal of the document, we are not persuaded to uphold the said contention particularly in view of clause 9 of the document. ( 4 ) MR M. N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant first attempted to show that the document concerned would not fall within the purview of the aforesaid Explanation I of Article 47-A. On a perusal of the document, we are not persuaded to uphold the said contention particularly in view of clause 9 of the document. Admittedly, the document is insufficiently stamped if that would fall within the purview of Explanation I. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr M. N. Rao that failure to pay the amount fixed by the trial court cannot be the sole basis for dismissing the suit. Hence the observations of the trial court that on failure to pay the penalty fixed by the court the suit will stand dismissed is uncalled for. ( 5 ) CHAPTER IV of the Indian Stamp Act contains provisions regarding "instruments not duly stamped". It is Section 35 which falls under the said chapter which empowered the trial court to direct the party (who wants the document to be acted upon) to pay the stamp duty (or the deficient portion) together with a penalty of rupees fifteen, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds fifteen rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. This is for the purpose of enabling the document to be admitted in evidence. In such a situation the document would be admitted only on payment of the aforesaid sum. In a case where the party is not willing or he cannot afford to pay the said sum the court has to adopt the procedure envisaged in Section 38 (2) of the Act. That sub-section is with reference to the action which the trial court is, perforce to adopt under section 33 (1) of the Act. ( 6 ) MR M. N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant cannot afford to pay the penalty now suggested as the amount is far beyond his capacity. But at the same time, he made a fervent plea that his suit cannot be allowed to be dismissed on the ground of inability to pay the huge penalty amount alone. We find some force in the said plea. But at the same time, he made a fervent plea that his suit cannot be allowed to be dismissed on the ground of inability to pay the huge penalty amount alone. We find some force in the said plea. In a case where the party fails to pay the penalty suggested by the court the document impounded has to be sent to the Collector for the purpose of taking further steps in respect of that document as provided in Section 40 of the Act. The Collector has the power to require the person concerned to pay the proper duty together with a penalty amount which the Collector has to fix in consideration of all aspects involved. The restriction imposed on the Collector in imposing the penalty amount is that under no circumstances the penalty amount shall go beyond ten times the duty or the deficient portion thereof. That is the farthest limit which meant only in very extreme situations the penalty need be imposed up to that limit. It is unnecessary for us to say that the Collector is not required by law to impose the maximum rate of penalty as a matter of course whenever an impounded document is sent to him. He has to take into account various aspects including the financial position of the person concerned. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid situation we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as the High Court. We direct the trial court to impound the document as indicated in Section 33 (1) and forward the same to the Collector concerned as envisaged in Section 38 (2) of the Act. ( 8 ) WE also direct the Collector concerned to complete the proceedings envisaged in Section 40 (1) of the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the document. The trial court shall await the receipt of the certificate of the order passed by the Collector for proceeding further in the suit. In other words the suit will be revived only on receipt of such certificate and the copy of the order of the Collector so passed. ( 9 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel submits that in view of the order passed in CA No. 7115 of 2000 the writ petition has become infructuous. ( 9 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel submits that in view of the order passed in CA No. 7115 of 2000 the writ petition has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.