JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - The challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, whereby the application for impounding the agreement to sell dated 20.03.2008 filed by the respondent was allowed on the ground that the same is not duly stamped. Resultantly, the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to deposit the penalty and produce the challan regarding the deposit of the requisite amount on the next date of hearing. 2. The perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the suit for possession/joint possession by way of specific agreement to sell dated 20.03.2008 was filed for the land in question falling in village Daulatpur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. A sum of Rs.11,93,958/- has been allegedly paid by the plaintiff as earnest money, however, total sale consideration was of Rs.30,93,958. The application for impounding the alleged agreement was filed, wherein reliance has been placed upon Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 17 (1-A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the ground that the possession of the suit property has been delivered and the agreement would require registration. The defendant also took the plea that a sum of Rs.1,85,637.48/- was required to be paid on stamp duty and if a penalty was levied of 10 times then Rs.18,53,374.80/- would be leviable. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner-plaintiff and the amount calculated was described on the ground that the rate of land in that village was Rs.5 lacs per acre and not Rs.70 lacs per acre. He had also replied that the stamp duty has been paid as per the duty prevalent at the time of execution of the agreement and there was no dispute with respect to the provisions of the Stamp Act as well as the Registration Act. It is to be noticed that the trial Court has allowed the application on the strength of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. It is to be noticed that the trial Court has allowed the application on the strength of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. However, this Court is of opinion that as per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the instrument which is to be impounded has to be examined by the person and he has ascertain, if it is the duly stamped with the stamp and value of description required by the law in force of India when such instrument was executed or first executed. Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act reads as under:- “Examination and impounding of instruments- 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 instrument 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 ascertain whether is it stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in force of ‘India’ when such instrument was executed or first executed.” 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that this exercise has not been carried out by the Court before passing of the impugned order. Even otherwise there are specific averments regarding the amount which was payable. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide notification dated 21.07.1998 (Annexure P-2) issued by Punjab Government, the agreement to sell had to be executed on stamp paper bearing sum of Rs.300/-. It is accordingly submitted that the agreement in question was on the requisite stamp paper and thus would not be leviable/impounded. Unfortunately the trial Court has failed to consider the bearing of the provisions of Section 33 and not applied its mind while ordering the impounding without coming to any specific conclusion, as to what was the exact amount on stamp paper on which the agreement had to be executed and what was the shortfall before impounding. In such circumstances, the order cannot be said to be justified and accordingly is quashed. 5. In such circumstances, the order cannot be said to be justified and accordingly is quashed. 5. The trial Court would be at liberty to pass fresh order on the application for impounding after taking into consideration as to what would be the amount payable on the instrument in question. The observations of the Division Bench of this Court in “Ram Kishan and another Vs. Bijender Mann @ Vijender Mann and others” [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3537 (DB) : 2012(2) Land L.R. 604 (P&H) (DB)] : 2013 (1) PLR 195 will also taken into consideration while passing the order, wherein the issue of registration and admissibility of the document has been discussed. 6. In view of the said observations, the present revision petition is allowed and order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna is set aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————