ORDER : R.DEVDAS, J. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court in O.S.No.165/2014, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur. The suit is for specific performance of contract in respect of agricultural lands situated at Kaliwal village, Savanur taluk, Haveri district. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has produced two documents, which are agreement of sale dated 23.5.2006 and another agreement of sale dated 9.10.2010. The defendant filed an application under sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity), praying the Court to impound the agreements, and direct the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty, which is leviable in accordance with the Act. The petitioner/plaintiff stated before the trial Court that the suit for specific performance is filed on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 19.10.2010 and not on the basis of the previous agreement dated 23.5.2006. Therefore it was contended on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff that he is not liable to pay the stamp duty with respect to the previous agreement dated 23.5.2006. However the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, sought the assistance of the Sub-Registrar, Savanur, for assessment of stamp duty and further issued directions to submit a report. Accordingly the Sub-Registrar, Savanur, submitted a report stating that stamp duty leviable on the agreement dated 23.5.2006 is 7.5% and 6% on the agreement dated 9.10.2010, on the basis of the consideration shown in both the agreements. Thereafter the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 4.7.2018 directing the plaintiff to pay total stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 4,27,000/-. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Digambar Warty and Others vs. District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District and Another reported in ILR 2013 KAR. 2099. In the said case it has been held that the Civil Court, after impounding the document and collecting the duty and penalty, is under a statutory obligation to send it to the Deputy Commissioner, who has been conferred the power to reduce the penalty already paid before the Civil Court. 4. 2099. In the said case it has been held that the Civil Court, after impounding the document and collecting the duty and penalty, is under a statutory obligation to send it to the Deputy Commissioner, who has been conferred the power to reduce the penalty already paid before the Civil Court. 4. The decision of the Division Bench in the case of Digambar Warty and Others (supra) fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Gangappa and Another vs. Fakkirappa, which was decided on 14.12.2018. Their lordships have upheld the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Digambar Warty and Others (supra). But in the case of Gangappa and Another (supra), the trial Court, while determining the deficit duty, imposed double the penalty of the deficit duty instead of directing payment of penalty at ten times as provided under section 34 of the Act. The High Court, while placing reliance on the decision in Digambar Warty and Others (supra), directed the trial Court to levy penalty at ten times deficit duty. Their lordships have held that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Digambar Warty and Others (supra) that there is no discretion vested with the authority to impound the document in the matter of collecting duty under section 33 of the Act, is correct. The word used under said proviso is ‘shall’. Sections 33 and 34 of the Act clearly indicate that penalties imposed has to be ten times. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having noticed that the trial Court had passed the order on 22.4.2013, which was more than five years ago and the proceedings were stayed. It was felt that asking the appellant to deposit ten times of penalty and thereafter to invoke the jurisdiction of Deputy Collector under section 38 of the Act to refund penalty shall be a proceeding again taking considerable time. In that view of the matter, with a view to meet the ends of justice, the matter was closed by confirming the payment of deficit duty with the double penalty as imposed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar orders could be passed by this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, with a view to meet the ends of justice, the matter was closed by confirming the payment of deficit duty with the double penalty as imposed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar orders could be passed by this Court. 6. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that there is no discretion vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting duty under Section 33 of the Act, as noted supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, while passing the order, for doing complete justice. Such powers are not available to this Court. 7. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 1321 , in similar circumstances, held that if the party agrees to remit the amount of stamp duty and penalty levied by the Court, the Court has to proceed with the trial after admitting the document in evidence. If the party is unwilling to remit the amount, the Court is to forward the original of the document itself to the collector for the purpose of adjudicating on the question of deficiency of the stamp duty. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act provides that in every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Deputy Commissioner. While Subsection (1) of Section 37 of the Act provides that after payment of penalty as provided by Section 34 or all duty as provided by Section 36, the person impounding shall send to the Deputy Commissioner an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Deputy Commissioner or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. Therefore, inline with the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chilakuri Gangulappa (supra) and in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act, the trial Court may proceed to send the instrument in original to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, may exercise his powers under Section 38 of the Act to refund the penalty paid under Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, may exercise his powers under Section 38 of the Act to refund the penalty paid under Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. 8. Even in the case of Digambar Warty and Others (supra), at paragraph 59, the same procedure is directed to be followed. However, it is held that the discretion conferred on the Deputy Commissioner should be exercised in a judicial manner. He will be exercising a Quasi-judicial power. Therefore, he has to take into consideration the facts of the case, the circumstances under which the instrument is executed, the reason given either for not paying the stamp duty or for payment of insufficient duty on such instrument and other attendant circumstances and then in his discretion he can reduce the penalty payable. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Savithramma R.C. Vs. M/s. Vijaya Bank and Another reported in ILR 2015 KAR 1984, at paragraph 7, it was held that after impounding the document, the Court may proceed under Section 37(2) of the Act and shall send the impounded instrument in original to the Deputy Commissioner to be dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. 9. In the present case, the petitioner is not willing to pay the stamp duty in terms of the impugned order and therefore the next course of action open to the trial Court is to forward the original instrument to the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act. The trial Court may also fix a definite period within which the Deputy Commissioner is required to adjudicate, collect the stamp duty and send back the original document to the Court. 10. In the light of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.