ORDER : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-02-2016 passed in Civil Suit no. 29-A/2010, by which, the defendant has been directed to exhibit the agreement without payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit property against the defendant. The defendant filed the written statement as well as counter claim seeking relief of specific performance of contract dated 31-03-2005. Along with the written statement and the counter claim, the defendant filed a copy of agreement dated 24-02-2003. The said agreement was executed for sale of immovable property in consideration of Rs. 52.50,000/- which was written on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The plaintiff raised an objection that the said agreement is inadmissible in evidence as stamp duty @ 1% of the total consideration has not been paid. On the basis of the said objection, the defendant has sought permission from Court to take back the said agreement from the Court for the purpose of impounding. Vide order dated 28-08-2015; the Court has permitted to return the deed to the defendant for impounding. Cross-examination was stayed awaiting the impounding. During the course of the cross-examination, the defendant tendered agreement dated 24-02-2003 in evidence, but the plaintiff raised an objection and defendant further sought time to get the documents impounded. 3. On 18-12-2015, the defendant filed an agreement dated 24-02-2003 along with an application under section 151 of C.P.C before the Court that impounding is not necessary and the said agreement is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose. The petitioner opposes such application that said agreement is not admissible in evidence, unless proper stamp duty is paid. 4. Learned Court below vide order dated 15-02-2016 has allowed the application under section 151 of C.P.C and permitted the defendant to tender the said agreement into evidence for collateral purpose. Learned court below has observed that the said agreement is not required to be impounded, because subsequent agreement dated 31-03-2015 has been executed between the parties, which has been impounded, hence the present writ petition before this Court. 5. Shri G.M. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Indian Stamp Act has been amended vide amendment no. Learned court below has observed that the said agreement is not required to be impounded, because subsequent agreement dated 31-03-2015 has been executed between the parties, which has been impounded, hence the present writ petition before this Court. 5. Shri G.M. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Indian Stamp Act has been amended vide amendment no. 12/2002 by which, all type of agreement or memorandum of agreement are liable to be stamped compulsorily and under Clause 5(e), if it is related to sell the immovable property and the possession of the property is not given then 1% of the total consideration of the property mentioned in the agreement is liable to be paid. Since the agreement is executed after 12-08-2002, therefore, this amended provision would apply. He further submits that under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, no instruments chargeable with duty are admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Jijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 532 . 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that agreement dated 24-02-2003 has been merged in subsequent agreement dated 31-03-2005, which has already been impounded, therefore, both the agreements are not required to be impounded and there is no loss of revenue to the Government. The agreement dated 24-02-2003 is tendered in evidence only for collateral purpose to prove signatures of the parties and for collateral purpose, it is admissible in evidence without payment of adequate stamp duty. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The document is tendered only for limited purpose, for that the plaintiff ought not to have any objection. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The defendant has made the pleadings about the agreement dated 24-02-2003 in para 3 of the written statement. In this para, he has stated that the agreement dated 24-02-2003 was written down in Rs. 100/- stamp paper purchased by Balkrishna S/o Raghunath Jadhav and after execution of the said agreement, the defendant has paid total sale consideration of Rs. 8. The defendant has made the pleadings about the agreement dated 24-02-2003 in para 3 of the written statement. In this para, he has stated that the agreement dated 24-02-2003 was written down in Rs. 100/- stamp paper purchased by Balkrishna S/o Raghunath Jadhav and after execution of the said agreement, the defendant has paid total sale consideration of Rs. 52,50,000/- and the eviction suit filed by Balkrishna was decided by way of compromise and the defendant continued in the possession and another agreement dated 31-03-2005 by way of convenience deed was executed. **3 okn pj.k 3 ds mRrj esa& ;g fd] okn pj.k 3 esa fd;s x;s dFku fd fnuakd 07-02-2002 esa eseksjsaMe vkWQ v.MjLVsfMax fy[kk x;k Fkk vkSj blds laca/k esa vkj0 ds0 xsBsokys ds lwpuki= ds ckn mDr ,e0vks0;w0 fujLr dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;g dFku iw.kZr% lkjghu gS ,oa vuko';d :i ls fy[ks x;s gS D;ksfd fnuakd 24-02-2003 dks Jh ckyd`".k j?kqukFk tk/ko }kjk Lo;a [kjhns x;s 100@& :i;s ds LVkEi ij fodz; vuqca/k ys[kk blh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa nksuks i{kksa ds e/; fu"ikfnr gqvk Fkk] mDr vuqca/k ys[k oknksRrj ds lkFk layxz gSA oknh us tkucw>dj bl vuqca/k ys[k dk o.kZu okni= esa ugha fd;k gSA mDr vuqca/k ys[k ds fu"iknu ds ckn tc izfroknhx.k dh vkSj ls vuqca/k ds vUrxZr vuqca/k esa of.kZr izfrQy dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k vFkkZr~ :i;s 52]50]000@& dh vnk dh xbZ vkSj izfroknhx.k muds iwoZt Jh czteksgu xMdj ds fo:) fdjk;snkj ds ukrs e`rd Jh ckyd`".k tk/ko us nkok yxk;k Fkk ,oa mlesa vkilh le>kSrk gksdj fdjk;snkjh okys lhu esa iwoZ ls gh vkf/kiR; esa jgrs gq, rFkk vU; fdjk;snkjksa ds f[kykQ fu"dk'ku ds nkoksa dk fujkdj.k gksus ls izfroknh dzekad 1 dks mDr lhu esa Hkh vkf/kiR; ns fn;k gksdj ,d vuqca/k ys[k fnuakd 31-03-2005 dks dUosal MhM dh 'kDy esa ckyd`".k tk/ko ,oa oknh iznhi tk/ko fodzsrki{k ,oa izfroknh dzekad 1 dks dzsrki{k izfroknh dzeakd 2] 3 o 4 dh lgefr ls fy[ks tkdj mDr vuqca/k ys[k nksuks i{kksa ds e/; iw.kZ lgefr ,oa LosPNk ls fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k Fkk] mDr vuqca/k dh izfrfyfi layxz izLrqr gS ,oa mDr vuqca/k ys[k fodzsrki{k vFkkZr~ oknh ,oa e`rd ckyd`".k ds oS/k mRrjkf/kdkjh ds :i esa iznhi tk/ko mDr vuqca/k ys[k ds fdz;kUo;u ds fy, ck/; gSA** 9. By way of above pleadings, the contention of the defendant is that in compliance of the agreement dated 24-02-2003, an amount of Rs. By way of above pleadings, the contention of the defendant is that in compliance of the agreement dated 24-02-2003, an amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- was paid by him. The plaintiff has denied his and his father's signatures over the agreement dated 24-02-2003 and also contended that neither original, nor photocopy of the said agreement was handed over to them. Therefore, the defendant, if placing reliance over agreement dated 24-03-2003 to prove the payment of Rs. 52,50,000/- to the plaintiff than he is required to prove the execution of the said agreement. When the said agreement is required to prove for all purposes, then there cannot be any collateral purpose. The amendment made in the Indian Stamp Act to the effect that all the stamps are liable to be stamped. The agreement to sell where the possession has not been delivered is liable to be paid stamp duty @ 1%. Section 5(e) is reproduced below : Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty (e) If relating to sale of immovable property :- The same duty as a conveyance (No. 20) on the market value of the property (i) When possession of the property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered without executing the conveyance. One percent of the total consideration of the property set forth in the agreement or memorandum of agreement. (ii) When possession of the property is not given 35. Instruments not duly stamped admissible 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 of 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. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chouhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (supra) in para 25 has specifically held that the documents of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose. Para 25 is reproduced below : 25. Section 35 of the Act, however rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. 12. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. 12. When the defendant himself has taken back the agreement dated 24/02/2003 for impounding and the Court has permitted, vide order dated 28/08/2015, this Court ought not to have permitted the defendant to file said documents again without impounding. 13. In view of the above, learned court below has wrongly exercised its discretion contrary to the provisions of section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15/02/2016 is hereby set aside. 15. No order as to cost. CC as per rules.