O. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. The contest ing opposite parties had filed suit for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop fully described in the plaint (Annexure No. 3), on the ground that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the shop since 20. 10. 1992 on terms and conditions enu merated in an agreement dated 20. 10. 1992. 2. The petitioner after service of no tice in the first instance without filing written statement moved application that the above agreement was insufficiently stamped and, therefore, the same be im pounded and charged accordingly as per v Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application by means of order dated 10. 12. 1997. The revi sion preferred against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 16. 3. 2001. The petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court against the said orders. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of section 33 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document has to be impounded before embarking upon any point arising in the case for ad judication. 4. On the other hand, learned Coun sel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties urged that since the petitioner was inducted as tenant on the basis of allotment order, the agreement has nothing to do with the case and that the plaintiffs-opposite parties are not relying on that document for eviction of , the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Section 33 (1) and (2) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is as follows: "33. Examination and impounding of in struments- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and, every person-in-charge of a public office; except an officer of police, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such in strument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to as certain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and descrip tion required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . " 7. The application of the petitioner for impounding has been rejected mainly on the ground that said document is not a lease-deed but some other agreement al though there is clause for enhancement of the rent. The Court was of the view that as the tenancy was created on the basis of al lotment order and the agreement is not a lease deed, therefore, it could not be said to be insufficiently stamped. It is also mentioned in the order of learned Revisional Court that landlords have not filed the said agreement of their own but the same was got summoned by the petitioner whereafter the same was filed. 8. In my opinion, the approach of the learned Courts below was clearly errone ous. The impounding of the document under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act is not dependent upon its relevancy or admissibility of the document and also on the fact whether document was filed by the party itself or it was produced on being summoned at the instance of the other party. 9. Section 33 as reproduced above provides-that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence before whom any instrument chargeable, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instru ment is not duly stamped, impound the same. Again sub-rule (2) says that for this purpose such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed. 10. Thus, according to above provi sion, in what ever manner the document was received in the Court, it was duty of the Court to have examined the document whether the same was required to be stamped and for what value. It cannot be disputed that Court has power to receive the evidence. Relevancy/admissibility of the document has also no relevance for ex amination or impounding the instrument. It cannot be disputed that Court has power to receive the evidence. Relevancy/admissibility of the document has also no relevance for ex amination or impounding the instrument. Therefore, every person having by law or authority to receive the evidence other than the Magistrate or Judge in a criminal case as per provision has to examine the docu ment in light of section 33. The Magistrate or Judge of a criminal Court as per proviso has no doubt discretion in this regard but except the Criminal Court no other author ity has any discretion. 11. It appears that learned Courts be low failed to look at section 33 and in this way they failed to examine the matter in light of section 33 and, therefore, misled in holding that document was not liable to be impounded for the reason it was not filed by the party concerned and the same was not being relied upon for the purpose of eviction of the petitioner. Since very ap proach of the Courts below was erroneous and they failed to examine the matter in right perspective. When the petitioner raised question of insufficiency of the document, the Court instead of going in any other question, should have examined the matter to find out whether the docu ment was of such nature that it required stamping and if so under which provision stamp was required to be paid and then to decide whether the stamp on the document was sufficient or not in light of the provi sion. In case amount of stamp under the relevant provision is sufficient, there is no need of impounding but when the Court comes in light of the relevant provisions that it is not properly stamped, then the Court has to impound the same and pro ceed in accordance with provisions of the Act. 12. In view of the above, the writ pe tition is allowed and the orders dated 10. 12. 1997 and 16. 3. 2001 are set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Trial Court to decide the application afresh in light of the observation made hereinabove. Petition Allowed. .