JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.7.2011, whereby the Trial Court disposed of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 ('the Stamp Act') seeking reference of the two documents, which were marked as Exs.-6 & 8 alongwith the affidavit of examination-in-chief filed to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of their nature and applicable stamp duty; and another application filed by the respondent seeking exclusion of the said documents marked as Exs.-6 & 8 on the basis that the said documents were unregistered and unstamped. 2. Learned Trial Court vide the impugned order came to the conclusion on the application filed by the respondent that the nature of the documents is not clear and, therefore, the same cannot be marked as Exhibit. 3. On the application filed by the petitioners again the Court came to the conclusion that as the nature of the documents is not clear, the same cannot be sent to the Collector (Stamps) under Section 37(4) of the Stamp Act. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that once there is a dispute about the nature of the documents and the fact as to whether they were required to be stamped and/or were unstamped and/or insufficiently stamped, under Section 37 of the Stamp Act, it is incumbent for the Court to refer the said document for adjudication of proper stamp duty. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that the documents were ex facie unstamped and unregistered and, therefore, there is no question of determination of stamp duty and the Trial Court was justified in ordering exclusion of the said document from consideration. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the petitioners as well as the respondent. 7. It is apparent that the documents Ex.-6 and 8 are unstamped. Section 37 of the Stamp Act imposes a duty on every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence before whom, any instrument chargeable in his opinion with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his duties, to impound the said documents if it is not duly stamped and under sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Stamp Act can made a reference to the Collector (Stamps) in the said matter. 8. 8. The case of both the parties is that the document Annexure-6 is a release deed and Exhibit 8 is a receipt, which are required to be stamped under provisions of the Stamp Act. 9. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Court to refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in him/duty imposed on him to impound/refer the said documents to the Collector (Stamps) does not appear to be correct. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.7.2011 Annexure-10 and Annexure-11 passed by the Trial Court are set aside and the documents Ex.-6 and 8 filed by the petitioners alongwith affidavit are directed to be impounded and referred to the Collector (Stamps), Rajsamand for taking proceedings under Section 37 of the Stamp Act and other applicable provisions of the Stamp Act. 11. After adjudication by the Collector (Stamps), it would be open for the respondent-plaintiff to question the admissibility of the said document/s for lack of registration.Stay application also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******