JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the learned trial court holding the mortgage-deed (Annexure-3) to be inadmissible in evidence until the deficit stamp duty and penalty is not paid. The learned Trial Court vide the order impugned directed that the unregistered document produced before it in evidence by the plaintiff/petitioner, which was purportedly a mortgage-deed dated 21.11.2005, however, the plaintiff/petitioner claimed that since the suit was only for recovery of money paid by him to the defendant/respondent under the said agreement, therefore, the said evidence could be submitted without payment of stamp duty as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, which is akin to Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1998'). 2. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thavni, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff initially submitted that the said document could be admitted in the evidence for collateral purposes of proving the facutm of giving the money to the defendant, however, the question of construction of the document was in question. Mr. Thanvi in alternative prayed that the learned trial court itself has directed the payment of deficit stamp duty including the penalty without referring the matter to the Collector (Stamps), which is the appropriate authority under the Stamps law to decide the deficit stamp duty and quantum of penalty, which is provided up to 11 times of the deficit stamp duty as per Section 37 of the Act of 1988. 3. Ms. Charu Raj, appearing on behalf of Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avniash Kumar Chuhan v. Vijay Krishan Mishra, reported in 1 (2009) 2 SCC 532 and decision of this Court in the case of Ganpat Mal Dhariwal v. Sukhraj and Anr., reported in AIR 2001 Raj. 372 , and submitted that there is no ' error in the impugned order and admissibility of the document is ruled-out for any purpose, if the document in question is not adequately stamped and, therefore, the direction of the learned trial Court that the deficit stamp duty should be paid along-with penalty is perfectly just and legal order and does not require ; interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra) held that contention that the document was admissible for collateral purpose is not correct. Parliament has, in Section 35, (parallel to Section 37 of the Act of 1998) advisedly used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking Section 35. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, there is no reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon the various previous judgments has distinguished the decision delivered in the case of Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 . 5. In view of the aforesaid legal position as far as the reason given in the impugned order and the direction given to the plaintiff/petitioner are concerned, the same do not require any interference by this Court. However, to the extent of directions that the matter ought to have been referred to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of the deficit stamp duty and the penalty impossiable for such deficit stamp duty paid by the plaintiff on the document in question, in the case of Mod Lal Dangi v. LR's of Sohan Kumar & Ors., reported in 2008 WLC (Raj.) 241 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, a coordinate. bench of this Court has found that in such circumstances, the document should be impounded and the matter should be referred to the Collector (Stamps), who is the competent authority under the Stamps law to determine the quantum of deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon. 6. To this extent, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified that instead of straightaway direction of payment of deficit stamp duty with penalty, the learned trial Court ought to have referred the matter to the Collector (Stamps) impounding the document in question and thereafter the Collector (Stamps) may decide the quantum of deficit stamp duty and penalty, to be imposed thereon. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the order is modified and the writ petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is, accordingly, disposed of. No, Costs. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the order is modified and the writ petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is, accordingly, disposed of. No, Costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Court below forthwith.Petition disposed of. *******