ORDER Though the respondents are served, they are un-represented. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 199 of 2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi. He has filed the above suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,82,800/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realisation with costs. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff is an agriculturist and the defendant 1 is carrying on business as trader of a concern known as M/s. Noor Trading Company, Gangavathi, who is also a commission agent. The petitioner is a farmer. He had taken his paddy to sell the same in the market. The same has been purchased by the defendants on 1-1-2001 and 7-2-2001 at the rate of Rs. 450/- and Rs. 460/- per quintal worth Rs. 1,82,731/-. In the APMC Yard, the weighman weighed the agricultural produce of the petitioner and the same was delivered to the 1st defendant. Annexures-C and D are the documents issued by the APMC. In the suit, the plaintiff was about to mark these documents as exhibits to prove that he has sold his paddy and the 1st defendant has purchased the same from him, the Trial Court has refused to grant permission to mark these documents contending that these documents attract the stamp duty and that unless and until the plaintiff pays the duty and penalty on these two documents, these documents cannot be marked. This order is called in question in this writ petition. 4. According to Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Annexures-C and D are not the documents entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant 1. According to him, these two documents are issued by the weighman of the APMC Yard as per the statutory provisions of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 and therefore, he contends that these documents do not attract the stamp duty. According to him, the Trial Court has misdirected itself by holding that these documents amount to conveyance, which attracts the stamp duty. 5. In this background, this Court has to examine whether in such circumstances, the petitioner has to pay the duty and penalty and whether these two documents attract the stamp duty. 6. According to him, the Trial Court has misdirected itself by holding that these documents amount to conveyance, which attracts the stamp duty. 5. In this background, this Court has to examine whether in such circumstances, the petitioner has to pay the duty and penalty and whether these two documents attract the stamp duty. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff as an agriculturist had taken his paddy to the APMC Yard, which is regulated under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, Annexure-C is a slip issued by the weighman, who has weighed the agricultural produce of the petitioner in the presence of the commission agent to show that a sum of Rs. 125/- was collected towards Hamali and that he has weighed 161.65 quintals of paddy. Similarly, Annexure-D is a form maintained by the APMC Yard to show that the paddy of the petitioner has been purchased by Allabaksh Shop on 4-2-2001. These documents have been issued to collect cesses from the commission agent, who is the defendant 1. Therefore, these two documents cannot be termed as documents to show the direct transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant 1. These two documents have come into existence while discharging the duty by the authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 and the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968 framed thereunder and they do not attract the stamp duty which amounts to conveyance showing the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant directly. These two documents may be treated as piece of evidence to show that the plaintiff has sold the agricultural produce as per the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 within the APMC Yard. Therefore, the trial has misdirected itself in calling upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 1-12-2004 passed in O.S. No. 199 of 2001 is hereby quashed. The rule is made absolute.