JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). 3. The impugned order is only an interim order in which it is mentioned that the Petitioner's stay application will be considered after deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount including penalty. 4. The revision in which the said interim order was passed was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue) u/s 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. 5. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid Act was amended by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 which inserted Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act which states: (1A) Notwithstanding any-thing contained in any other provisions of this Act, any person including the Government aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Chapter-IV, Chapter-V or under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of such order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard consider the case and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper and the order so passed shall be final: Provided that no application for stay of recovery of any disputed amount of stamp duty including interest thereon or penalty shall be entertained unless the applicant has furnished satisfactory proof of the payment of not less than one-third of such disputed amount: Provided further that where the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passes an order for the stay of recovery of any stamp duty, interest thereon or penalty or for the stay of the operation of any order appealed against and such order results in the stay of recovery of any stamp duty, interest thereon or penalty, such stay order shall not remain in force for more than thirty days unless the Appellant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Collector concerned for the payment of the outstanding amount. 6. The validity of the above provision was upheld by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21344 of 2003, Syed Mahfooj Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 19.5.2003. 6. The validity of the above provision was upheld by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21344 of 2003, Syed Mahfooj Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 19.5.2003. In that decision against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court it was held that U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 has not deleted Section 56(1) which states that the power of the Collector is subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Hence, in rare and exceptional cases, if the Collector has imposed exorbitant stamp duty arbitrarily, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, on an application, can modify the same. However, it was held in that decision that the power u/s 56(1) should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases otherwise the provision for appeal u/s 56(1A) will become redundant. 7. In the present case, the Petitioner has not been able to show why it has not filed an appeal u/s 56(1A) and instead has filed a Revision u/s 56(1). There is nothing in the writ petition stating that the Petitioner does not have the funds to deposit 1/3rd of the demand of stamp duty and penalty. Hence, in our opinion, the Petitioner was not justified in filing a Revision u/s 56(1) as he has not been able to demonstrate that it was a rare and exceptional case. In our opinion, the Petitioner should have filed an appeal u/s 56(1A) and should have deposited 1/3rd of the disputed amount as required by the first proviso to Section 56(1A). Even otherwise, we are of the opinion, that the grant of a stay order is in the discretion of the appellate/revisional authority and the said authority can impose such condition on the grant of a stay order as it deems fit. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.