JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J.: This application is directed against the Order No.79 dated March 17, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambagh in Misc. Execution Case No.3 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application dated January 14, 2010 filed by the decree-holder. 2. The petitioner obtained an award on partition of family properties by way of an arbitration award dated December 26, 2000 against the opposite parties. For execution of the said award, the petitioner filed an application for execution and the said application has been numbered into Misc. Execution Case No.3 of 2002. The award is to be passed on a Stamp Paper of Rs.150/- at the time of passing the award in the year 2000. When the matter was detected, the petitioner deposited Rs.150/- as Stamp Duty by filing the non-judicial stamp. Subsequently, the learned Executing Court directed that the said award was to be impounded. Accordingly, impounding was made and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1500/- as penalty. Thereafter, the judgment debtors/opposite parties appeared and the learned Trial Judge directed the Collector to assess the market value of the properties. Accordingly, the valuation was assessed to the extent of Rs.23,44,800/-. Subsequently, the Court again asked for report and the said valuation was changed to Rs.47,30,480/-. The Executing Court has asked the Collector to determine the Stamp Duty to be payable and the amount, that is, required as penalty for impounding the document. The Collector did not send any report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the said application for not calling for the report and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the application for execution was filed in the year 2002 and since then, it is still pending on the ground that the Collector did not send the report as to the quantum of Stamp Duty and the penalty to be paid for impounding over the valuation of the suit properties. In this regard, the learned Executing Court, I hold, is proceeding on a wrong way. The Executing Court is to effect partition of the suit property as per award dated December 26, 2000. In this regard, the learned Executing Court, I hold, is proceeding on a wrong way. The Executing Court is to effect partition of the suit property as per award dated December 26, 2000. When it was noticed that the said award was without any Stamp Duty as per direction of the Court, the decree-holder paid the Stamp Duty on the award under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Subsequently, the learned Executing Court held that the said award was to be impounded. Accordingly, the decree-holder deposited Rs.1500/- as penalty for impounding the award in compliance of the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, so far as the part for impounding the document for taking the same into consideration by the learned Court is concerned, I find that the Stamp Duty and the penalty on the award had been paid. Now, the said award is to be executed through the concerned Court and the matter is pending for that purpose. 5. By an order dated July 11, 2005, the Executing Court asked for a report from the Collector for determination of the valuation of the properties of the award. Accordingly, the Collector sent the report over the valuation of the properties involved in the execution to the extent of Rs.23,44,800/- by a forwarding letter dated January 6, 2006 of the Block Development Officer, Arambagh Development Block, Hooghly. Thus, I find that the valuation of the properties mentioned in the award had been assessed to the tune of Rs.23,44,800/-. The decree-holder is required to pay the Stamp Duty over this amount and not to pay any penalty. 6. The determination of the Stamp Duty could well be done according to the Schedule of the concerned Act and for that reason, the matter need not be sent to the Collector. But it is surprising to note that by an order dated May 3, 2007, the matter was referred to the Collector again for determination of the valuation of the properties mentioned in the award and the Collector assessed the valuation to the tune of Rs.47,30,480/-. Had the petitioner paid the Stamp duty over the said amount of Rs.23,44,800/-, the question of sending the matter for determination of valuation to the Collector again would not have arisen. Had the petitioner paid the Stamp duty over the said amount of Rs.23,44,800/-, the question of sending the matter for determination of valuation to the Collector again would not have arisen. If the report as to valuation is called again now, then certainly the valuation of the property would be more than Rs.47 lakh and odd and so, this process as adopted by the Executing Court cannot be accepted. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that the steps taken by the learned Executing Court relating to further valuation of the properties, Stamp Duty and the penalty to be paid thereon subsequent to the submission of the report dated January 6, 2006 as appearing as Annexure ‘P-4’ at page no.41 cannot be supported. So, all the subsequent orders after receipt of the report as to the valuation to the tune of Rs.23,44,800/- cannot be supported. The impugned order cannot also be supported under the circumstances. 8. Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to the decision of M. Mohan v. Smt. Maheshwari Seth reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 115 and he submits that it is the duty of the Trial Court to determine the question of admissibility of unstamped or insufficiently stamped document, judicially as soon as it is tendered in evidence and before it is marked exhibit. Such a question should not be left undetermined till final judgment. If for any reason, such a question is determined at the final stage and the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is not duly stamped, an opportunity must be given to the party who tenders the document in evidence to pay deficit stamp duty and the penalty thereon under Sections 33 read with 35 of the Stamp Act. Thus, Mr. Chakraborty has also submitted that the Court is not required to depend on the report of the Collector as to the payment of the stamp duty and the penalty under the aforesaid Sections of the said Act. He has also submitted that according to Section 35 of the said Act, a duty is cast on all judicial officers to examine and if it is to be found inadequately stamped to impound any such instrument. He has also submitted that according to Section 35 of the said Act, a duty is cast on all judicial officers to examine and if it is to be found inadequately stamped to impound any such instrument. He has also submitted that where a judicial officer impounds and instrument under this Section, he must, unless he has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits the instrument on payment of a penalty, sent the instrument to the Collector. In the instant case, the Executing Court passed the order dated September 24, 2007 relating to writing to the Collector for assessing the stamp duty and penalty in respect of the properties involved in the award; but the Court is competent to do that. Such order was not passed upon hearing the decree-holder. Therefore, the said order dated September 24, 2007 cannot be supported. 9. Upon due consideration of the decision referred to in M. Mohan (supra) and the above position I am in fully agreement with the submission of Mr. Chakraborty. 10. Similarly, Mr. Chakraborty has referred to the decision of Marappa & ors. v. Thimmegowda & anr. reported in AIR 1981 Karnataka 121 and thus, he submits that the Court itself is to determine the duty and the penalty, if any, over the valuation of the properties in case. 11. He has also referred to the decision of M/s. Wilson & Company Private Limited etc. v. K.S. Lokavinayagam & anr. reported in AIR 1992 Madras 100 particularly the paragraph nos.16 and 17 and thus, he submits that the Court is competent to pass orders for stamp duty and the penalty for impounding as per Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899. 12. Mr. Chakraborty has also referred to the decision of Smt. Bina Roy v. Smt. Basanti Bhattacharya & ors. reported in 2009(2) ICC 677 and thus, he submits that the provisions of Court Fees Act, 1970 empowers the Court to revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit and proper for the said purpose. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Bandopadhyay appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to the decision of Jt. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Bandopadhyay appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to the decision of Jt. Sub Registrar-I, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore v. Prasanth Chandran reported in AIR 2005 Madras 354 and submits that the Collector is competent to impound a document when it comes before him and when it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. Therefore, the Collector is empowered to call upon the concerned person to pay the proper duty apart from levying any penalty as prescribed under the said provisions of the said Act. 14. It may be mentioned herein that the impounding of the award had been made, when the award did not contend the stamp duty required at the time of passing the award. Therefore, a question of payment of the stamp duty or the penalty thereon does not arise at all. But, in order to effect the award, the valuation of the properties in the execution case is to be assessed for determination of the stamp duty and there is no question of payment prior to the report received relating to valuation. Therefore, in the instant case, the question of payment of penalty does not arise at all with regard to the valuation of the properties as noted above. 15. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be supported at all. 16. In that view of the matter, the revisional application succeeds. It is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The learned Executing Court is directed to proceed with the suit taking the valuation of the property in the execution case to the tune of Rs.23,44,800/- in the light of the observations made above. 17. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.