Judgment :- Anand Byrareddy, J Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. He had sought to produce the agreement of sale, which was the subject matter of the suit. The agreement had been executed on stamp paper of inadequate value. The petitioner had therefore paid the difference of stamp duty on the agreement just before filing the suit. The respondents who had not filed their written statement however, filed an interlocutory application seeking that the said document be impounded. The lower Court having held that though the requisite stamp duty has been paid on the document, -by making good the short-fall, before filing of the suit the document could not be impounded but has opined that the petitioner is bound to pay penalty on the same as duty is paid belatedly. It is this that is sought to be challenged in this petition. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below has misinterpreted the scope of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). It is contended that the Court could impose penalty only when an insufficiently stamped document is impounded by the Court for being insufficiently stamped. As the requisite stamp duty was paid before the document was filed into Court-even according to the Court below the question of impounding the document did not arise. In which event the imposition of penalty on the ground the belated payment of deficit stamp duty on documents only when they are sought to be acted upon, would lead to a loss of revenue to the State, is an extraneous consideration on which the penalty is imposed in the absence of any statutory provision in that regard. It is contended that the same is a gloss placed on the Act by the Court below. 4. Per contra the Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that in terms of Section 10 of the Act any stamp duty paid would be indicated on the instrument. In the absence of any endorsement as regards the alleged payment of the deficit stamp duty there is no payment in the eye of law. Further in terms of Section 17, all documents chargeable with duty shall be stamped before or at time of execution. In the absence of any endorsement as regards the alleged payment of the deficit stamp duty there is no payment in the eye of law. Further in terms of Section 17, all documents chargeable with duty shall be stamped before or at time of execution. Hence even if any duty is paid subsequently this is not in accordance with the Section. It is also contended that Section 31 provides a procedure for determination of the proper stamp duty payable on an insufficiently stamped document, which is also not followed by the petitioner. 5. On the above rival contentions the point for consideration by this Court is as to whether the Court below was right in its opinion in having held that though the requisite stamp duty was paid on the agreement of sale before filing the suit since a deficit was paid only just before filing the suit-the petitioner was liable to pay penalty? 6. There is no dispute that the agreement of sale dated 9-6-2004 recorded the delivery of physical possession of the immovable property covered thereunder to the petitioner and attracted the stamp duty prescribed under the Schedule to the Act. However, the document was insufficiently stamped. The petitioner had paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 19,550/-as on 14-3-2008, just prior to filing of the suit; 7. Under the Act, all duties with which any instruments are changeable shall be paid by means of stamps and such payment shall be indicated on such instruments (Section 10). 8. Payment of stamp duty by cash is permissible, in the manner provided under Section 10A. 9. The Act prescribes the time of stamping instruments under Section 17, the same reads as follows: “17. Instruments executed in the State of Karnataka, -All instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in the State of Karnataka shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. (Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to an instrument in respect of which sampt duty has been paid under Section 10-A). 10. From a plain reading of the above Section-the subsequent payment of duty to avoid the document being impounded by the Court, when the same is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of the suit, does not render the document as being one which is “duly stamped” under the provisions of the Act. 10. From a plain reading of the above Section-the subsequent payment of duty to avoid the document being impounded by the Court, when the same is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of the suit, does not render the document as being one which is “duly stamped” under the provisions of the Act. The expression “duly stamped” as defined under 2(1)(c) of the Act, read with Section 17 would render it an insufficiently stamped document. 11. The conduct of the petitioner would indicate that the parties were not doubtful of the actual duty payable – for it has been determined in accordance with the schedule by the petitioner himself, and is paid. 12. The said document having been produced in Court it sought to have been impounded under Section 33 of the Act, notwithstanding the payment of deficit stamp duty, by the petitioner,; Further, in terms of Section 34 of the Act the petitioner can be permitted to rely on the same, for any purpose, only on payment of penalty as prescribed under Section 34. The Section is extracted for ready reference. “34. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc., -No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped.” (emphasis supplied) Provided that- Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 13. It is clear from the above that not only is the document inadmissible in evidence – the Court cannot also act upon it. For instance, the Court cannot on the basis of the same consider any interim reliefs by way of temporary injunction or attachment before judgment etc.,-till such time both duty and penalty are paid. 14. There are no provisions either under the Act or the Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958, which enabled the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty at his will, long after the execution of the document. 15. Hence the lower Court is hereby directed to impound the document in question forthwith, notwithstanding the duty may have been paid on it belatedly and act upon it or admit the same in evidence, if the petitioner seeks to rely upon it, only on payment of the penalty imposed. 16. The petition is dismissed with the above observation.