ORDER : P.B. Bajanthri, J. 1. In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District in Revn. Petition No. 18/2007-08 vide Annexure - A. 2. Petitioner is stated to be the owner in occupation of 2 acres 17 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 92/3 of Kannalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk pursuant to the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 registered as Document No. 7193/1995-96 in Book-1, Volume-5560 at pages 81-85 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk. Petitioner obtained mutation entry in his name vide MR. No. 3/1999-2000. Thereafter, computerization of revenue records stood in the name of the petitioner vide MR. No. 16/2005-06. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 779/1995 on the file of the Principal II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural seeking declaration and injunction without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party. The suit was decreed on 29.09.1999. In this backdrop, respondent No. 1 proceeded to get the entries in the revenue records to be changed in her name and it was accepted by the revenue officials vide order dated 21.04.2003. Petitioner preferred R.A. No. 162/2004-05 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division and it was allowed on 03.01.2007 while setting-aside the revenue entries in favour of respondent No. 1 viz. setting-aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 21.04.2003. Further, petitioner filed O.S. No. 1863/2006 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bengaluru Rural seeking cancellation of the fraudulent judgment and decree dated 29/09/1999 as amended on 11/01/2002 in O.S. 779/1995. 3. Smt. Narasamma executed Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (Hereinafter referred to as 'IGPA" for short) in favour of Sri Muniraju on 16.04.2007 in respect of the subject land to negotiate terms and to agree to sell the schedule property in his absolute discretion, thinks proper, agree upon and to enter into any agreement or agreements for such sale or sales and/or to cancel and or repudiate the same including engaging any advocate/counsel, to execute the vakalatnama and memo of appearance, to give necessary instructions in respect of litigations pertaining to the schedule property and etc. 4. Pursuant to the execution of IGPA dated 16.04.2007, the IGPA holder Sri Muniraju preferred Revision Petition No. 18/2007-08 before the Deputy Commissioner - 3rd respondent on the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 03.01.2007. 5. 4. Pursuant to the execution of IGPA dated 16.04.2007, the IGPA holder Sri Muniraju preferred Revision Petition No. 18/2007-08 before the Deputy Commissioner - 3rd respondent on the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 03.01.2007. 5. In the Revision Petition, petitioner filed statement of objections. He has also filed Miscellaneous application/I.A. wherein he had sought for impounding the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 on the score that it was not registered and stamped and it is in violation of Section 33 read with Article 41(eb) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1957' for short) and cited decisions of the Apex Court and this Court respectively in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. P. LAXMI DEVI (SMT) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 and in SRI G.K.S. SHANKAR vs. SMT. PUTTAREVAMMA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2790. Petitioner has also filed written arguments in support of the aforesaid Miscellaneous application/I.A. before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the petitioner's Miscellaneous Application/I.A. Hence, the present petition questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.10.2012 vide Annexure - A. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that IGPA holder Sri Muniraju is not related to respondent No. 1 - Smt. Narasamma who has executed IGPA dated 16.04.2007. The 3rd respondent has failed to appreciate the contentions urged in the written arguments. It was further contended that Article 41(eb) and Section 33 of the Act, 1957 which is part of Chapter IV-instruments not duly stamped of the Act, 1957 these provisions have not been taken note of and discussed and also pointed out that all the clauses in the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding Miscellaneous Application/I.A. for impounding IGPA vide Annexure - G dated 16.04.2007. Respondent No. 3 has relied only on Clauses 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of IGPA while holding that issue is restricted to whether the revenue entries in the revenue records is required to be revisited or not and the alienation of the land is not involved and in the absence of issue relating to the alienation of land, question of impounding IGPA dated 16.04.2007 is not appreciable. One of the issue empowering the IGPA holder is to negotiate terms and to agree to sell the schedule property in his absolute discretion etc. One of the issue empowering the IGPA holder is to negotiate terms and to agree to sell the schedule property in his absolute discretion etc. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions: 1. Apex Court Judgment dated 14.02.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 1599/2020 in the matter of M/s. DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM AND OTHER CHARITIES AND OTHERS VS. BHASKAR RAJU AND BROTHERS & OTHERS reported in (2020) 4 SCC 612 . 2. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. P. LAXMI DEVI (SMT) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 3. HARIOM AGRAWAL Vs. PRAKASH CHAND MALVIYA reported in (2007) 8 SCC 514 , 4. Division Bench of this Court in MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS vs. MISS. P. GUNAVATHY reported in ILR 2013 KAR 368 and 2013 (1) KLJ 374 (DB), 5. Division Bench of this Court in SRI GANGADHAR VS. SRI RAVI in W.P. Nos. 53448/2017 & 53945/2017 (GM-CPC) decided on 07/12/2017 (Paras. 15 to 17). 7. Learned counsel for the State supported the decision of the 3rd respondent to the extent that question of impounding the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 vide Annexure-G is not permissible having regard to the subject matter before the 3rd respondent. Impounding of a document by competent officer/Court would arise only as and when there is sale transaction or an instrument is to be admitted in evidence. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner dated 10.10.2012 vide Annexure - A. The cited decisions do not assist the petitioner in view of the fact that factual aspects of the present matter are entirely different. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that IGPA dated 16.04.2007 vide Annexure - G was not tendered for the purpose of evidence before the 3rd respondent so as to examine whether the instrument (Ann. G) is admissible in evidence or not. In such circumstances, only competent authority/Court are liable to examine whether instrument is duly stamped or not. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit dated 17.02.2021 wherein 1st respondent has clarified to what extent the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 vide Annexure - G like filing of revision petition etc. In view of the affidavit, the present petition do not survive for consideration. In para. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit dated 17.02.2021 wherein 1st respondent has clarified to what extent the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 vide Annexure - G like filing of revision petition etc. In view of the affidavit, the present petition do not survive for consideration. In para. 8 of the affidavit, Sri R Muniraju has given an undertaking that in future he will not use the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 issued in his favour vide Annexure - G. Accordingly petitioner has not made out case and petition be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Core issue involved in the instant case is, "Whether the Deputy Commissioner - 3rd respondent in a revision petition under Section 136(3) of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 could impound the unstamped IGPA/instrument dated 16.04.2007 or not? 11. The Indian Stamp Act is a fiscal legislation with an object to protect revenue and to collect revenue (tax) in the shape of stamps on various transactions covered by the instruments. It is in fact to exclude proof of any transaction by an instrument not duly stamped till stamp duty levied and paid. The Indian Registration Act is one way of legislation having public policy to protect public and prevent wrong by conservation of evidence, assurance of title and publicity of document. In other words, to prevent people from being duped into entering transaction relating to property with persons having no right or title and publicity from documents registered about right and title over the property in order to prevent fraud and mischief. Virtually registration of an instrument is a notice by way of definite recorded information to the world at large to enable public to verify records and enquire there from right, title and obligations, if any on any immovable property. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to reproduce Sections 33, 34, Article 41(eb) and Sections 37 and 39 of Act, 1957. 33. 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 it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the [State of Karnataka] when such instrument was executed or first executed. Provided that,-- (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (b) in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine,-- (a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices. 34. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine,-- (a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices. 34. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible 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 to 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: Provided that,-- (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable [with a duty not exceeding fifteen naye paise] only, or a mortgage of crop [Article [35] (a) of the Schedule] chargeable under clauses (a) and (b) of section 3 with a duty of twenty-five paise shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, or the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (c) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the [Deputy Commissioner] as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act 2[and such certificate has not been revised in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Chapter VI]. Art. 41: Power of Attorney - (as defined by Section 2(1)(p) not being a proxy:- When given to a person other than the father, mother, wife or husband, sons, daughters, brothers sisters in relation to the executant authorizing such person to sell immovable property situated in Karnataka State. [The same duty as a conveyance under Article 20(1)] on the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the power of attorney : [Provided that the duty paid on agreement for sale under Article 5(e) or instrument of sale or transfer as the case may be is adjustable towards the duty payable on such power of attorney under Article 41 (eb), executed between the same parties and in respect of the same property.] 37. Instruments impounded how dealt with.-(1) When the person impounding an instrument under section 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by section 34 or of duty as provided by section 36, he 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. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the [Deputy Commissioner]. 39. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the [Deputy Commissioner]. 39. [Deputy Commissioner's] power to stamp instruments impounded.- (1) When the [Deputy Commissioner] impounds any instrument under section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under sub-section (2) of section 37, not being an instrument chargeable [with a duty not exceeding fifteen naye paise] only or a mortgage of crop [Article [35] (a) of the Schedule] chargeable under clause (a) or (b) of section 3 with a duty of twenty-five naye paise, he shall adopt the following procedure:-- (a) if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stamped, or is not chargeable with duty, he shall certify by endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped, or that it is not so chargeable, as the case may be; (b) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of five rupees; or if he thinks fit; an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof, whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees: Provided that, when such instrument has been impounded only because it has been written in contravention of section 13 or section 14, the [Deputy Commissioner] may, if he thinks fit, remit the whole penalty prescribed by this section. (2) [Subject to any orders made under Chapter VI, every certificate] under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of this Act be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. (3) Where an instrument has been sent to the 1[Deputy Commissioner]1 under sub-section (2) of section 37, the [Deputy Commissioner] shall, when he has dealt with it as provided by this section, return it to the impounding officer. Reading of Section 33, it is crystal clear that except police authority rest of the officer/s/authority/s is empowered to impound unstamped instrument. There is no prohibition for the 3rd respondent to impound instrument like in the present petition IGPA dated 16.04.2007 in a revision petition under Section 136(3) of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Reading of Section 33, it is crystal clear that except police authority rest of the officer/s/authority/s is empowered to impound unstamped instrument. There is no prohibition for the 3rd respondent to impound instrument like in the present petition IGPA dated 16.04.2007 in a revision petition under Section 136(3) of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is also to be noted that Smt. Narasamma is not related to Sri Muniraju who has been given the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 in respect of subject land in not registering the instrument is in violation of Article 41(eb) of Act, 1957. 13. The 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner has relied only on some of the clauses of the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 like Clauses 5(5), 7 to 10 but has failed to take note of each and every clause mentioned in the IGPA dated 16.04.2007 in favour of Sri Muniraju. In fact, Clauses 1 to 6 empower Sri Muniraju to sell and other ancillary procedures in respect of subject land. Even though, IGPA dated 16.04.2007 has been invoked/utilised by Sri Muniraju on behalf of Smt. Narasamma in presenting revision petition, the instrument is required to be stamped. Unstamped instrument is invoked/utilised for the purpose of filing revision petition only whereas Section 33 read with Art. 41(eb) of Act, 1957, does not allow Smt. Narasamma to waive off in paying stamp duty and fees on the instrument. Therefore, 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application in not impounding the IGPA dated 16.04.2007. 14. The petitioner relied on the following citations: 1. Apex Court Judgment in Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram and other charities and others v. Bhaskar Raju & Brothers and others. Reported in (2020) 4 SCC 612 (relevant paras 17, 18) Facts: This case involved two parties who disputed whether a document executed between them was a lease deed or an "agreement to lease", and whether arbitration could be invoked under the said document. Though the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court had determined that the concerned document was a lease deed, and that deficit stamp duty and penalty was payable by the Respondent, the duty had not been paid. Though the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court had determined that the concerned document was a lease deed, and that deficit stamp duty and penalty was payable by the Respondent, the duty had not been paid. Taking into account this non-payment of stamp duty, and relying on its landmark judgment in SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66 , the Supreme Court reiterated that when an arbitration agreement was contained in a document which was not duly stamped, the court could not act upon such a document nor the arbitration agreement therein. Held: SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AN INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENT CANNOT BE ACTED UPON. The Supreme Court's judgment in SMS Tea Estates makes it abundantly clear that courts cannot act upon arbitration agreements contained in insufficiently stamped documents. In fact, while that was a case decided with reference to the Arbitration Act as it stood prior to the 2015 amendment, even post such amendment, the Supreme Court has upheld the reasoning and decision of SMS Tea Estates in its more recent judgment in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. 3 Hence, parties would always be well-advised to ensure that proper stamp duty is paid on their legal instruments, taking into account the stamp duty payable across all state jurisdictions where the document is relied upon. 2. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi Reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 (Relevant Paras., 13, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29, 31, 51, 99, 100) Facts: The writ petition was filed in the High Court praying for a declaration that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 which requires a party to deposit 50% deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47-A is unconstitutional. By the impugned judgment the High Court has declared it unconstitutional. Hence, this appeal. HELD: "we are of the opinion that the said amendment, being an economic measure, cannot be said to be unconstitutional. This appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the constitutional validity of the amended Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is upheld." 3. Hariom Agrawal vs. Prakash Chand Malviya Reported in (2007) 8 SCC 514 . HELD: "we are of the opinion that the said amendment, being an economic measure, cannot be said to be unconstitutional. This appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the constitutional validity of the amended Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is upheld." 3. Hariom Agrawal vs. Prakash Chand Malviya Reported in (2007) 8 SCC 514 . (Relevant paras., 10 and 16) Facts: X was tenant of Respondent. Respondent let out the premises to Appellant to carry out the business. Appellant and Respondent executed an agreement whereby landlord tenanted the shop to Appellant on payment of advance amount. Respondent filed suit of eviction on ground of bona fide requirement. Appellant produced a photocopy of agreement which was admitted as secondary evidence in the Trial Court. On appeal High Court held that photocopy of agreement cannot be admitted as evidence and that such a document can neither be impounded nor accepted in secondary evidence. Hence, present appeal Held: Section 37 of the Act would be attracted where although the instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but such stamp is of improper description, as in the present case where the proper stamp duty of Re. 1/- under the Act has not been paid but a notarized stamp of Rs. 4/- was affixed on the document. The sufficient amount of the stamp duty has been paid but the duty paid by means of affixture of notarized stamp is of improper description. The power under Section 37 and Rule 19, even after framing the rules by the State Government, could only be exercised for a document which is an instrument as described under Section 2(14). An instrument is held to be an original instrument and does not include a copy thereof. Therefore, Section 37 and Rule 19 would not be applicable where a copy of the document is sought to be produced for impounding or for admission as evidence in a case. 4. MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTLES VS. MISS. P. GUNAVATHY reported in ILR 2013 KAR 368 and 2013 (1) KLJ 374 (DB), Facts : The question that arose before the learned Judge in the writ petition is in respect of "impounding an insufficiently stamped document". According to the defendant, in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the moment an insufficiently stamped document is produced before the Court, Court has to impound the same. According to the defendant, in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the moment an insufficiently stamped document is produced before the Court, Court has to impound the same. It was contended by the plaintiff that, the question of impounding of an insufficiently stamped document would come into play only when a party intending to rely upon such document tenders in his evidence. The learned City Civil Judge considering the rival contentions relying upon the judgment of this Court in Lakshminarayanachar vs. Narayan and another reported in 1969 (2) MLJ 299 rejected the contention of the defendant holding that, Court can impound the document only when the same is tendered during the course of the evidence. Held. Court has power by "holding that under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the moment an insufficiently stamped instrument comes to the notice of the Court, the same has to be impounded in accordance with Section 33, whether the same would be relied upon by the party under Section 34 or not". On careful reading of the judgment in Lakshminarayanachar's case also this Court has held that the Court has power to impound the document under Section 33. In this 16 WP 30884/2012 background, we are of the view that, there is no conflict of judgments in interpreting Section 33 but the question is when Sections 33 and 34 has to be exercised by the Court which have been answered in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Relevant paras 12 and 13 reads as under: 12. Court cannot say that it would impound the document only when the document is tendered in evidence for marking. There may be instances where duty and penalty payable may be very high and the party may not choose to rely upon such insufficiently stamped document in order to avoid stamp duty and penalty. In such circumstances, it would result in loss of revenue to the exchequer. The power of impounding a document is to collect stamp duty and penalty whenever there is an escape of duty. Therefore, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that a document is insufficiently stamped, the Court exercising its power under Section 33 of the Act has to pass an order at the first instance for 15 WP 30884/2012 impounding the document. Therefore, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that a document is insufficiently stamped, the Court exercising its power under Section 33 of the Act has to pass an order at the first instance for 15 WP 30884/2012 impounding the document. Though there is a discretion vested in the Court to exercise powers under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, no Court can hold that it would wait till the document is tendered in evidence. In such circumstances, there may be chances of loss of revenue to the exchequer. 13. In the circumstances, we answer the reference "holding that under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the moment an insufficiently stamped instrument comes to the notice of the Court, the same has to be impounded in accordance with Section 33, whether the same would be relied upon by the party under Section 34 or not". 5. Sri S Gangadhar vs. Sri Ravi in Writ Nos., 53448/2017 & 53945/2017 decided on 07/12/2017 (Paras. 12 to 14) Facts: This is case of an agreement which is not sufficiently stamped and as such the plaintiff has to pay proper stamp duty on the said document Hence, the document has to be impounded. Held: In view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, once it is produced before the Court, or if it appears that such instrument is not duly stamped, the Court shall refer the matter to impound. The same has been done in the present case. On the other hand, this Court in the case of SUMAN vs. VINAYAK AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1 KCCR 881 has held at para. 15 which is extracted hereunder: 15. The moment an instrument is produced in a proceedings before an Authority which in law is entitled to receive and if it appears to the said authority that such instrument or document is either not stamped or not duly stamped, the first step such authority would have to take is to impound such document as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 33. There may be a situation in which the instrument or document is produced in the proceedings but not tendered in evidence or it is not sought to i.e. tendered in evidence. Even in such circumstances, a duty is cast on such authority or Court to impound such instrument. There may be a situation in which the instrument or document is produced in the proceedings but not tendered in evidence or it is not sought to i.e. tendered in evidence. Even in such circumstances, a duty is cast on such authority or Court to impound such instrument. In other words such authority of Court before whom such instrument is produced which is not charged with duty or not duly charged, then it has to necessarily impound such document. This is the first stage under which the person in charge of a public office or the Court before which such instrument is produced has to exercise its power under sub-section (1) of Section 33. The scheme of Stamp Act would mandate that when a document chargeable to duty is produced into Court in connection with proceedings before it is found to be not stamped or not duly stamped, then such authority holding Public Office or Court as the case may be is bound to impound such instrument or document. As already noticed hereinabove there may be circumstances or situation where the document has been produced in the proceedings but it is not tendered in evidence. Then, even in such circumstances, it would be the duty of the authority or Court at impound such document or instrument and thereafter, if it is found that such instrument or document is not sought to be admitted in evidence by the party so producing, the course that would be left open to the Court would be to send such instrument or document so impounded by it to the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act. Apex Court Judgment in M/s. DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM (supra) and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS (supra) supports petitioner's contention to impound IGPA. 15. Apex Court Judgment in M/s. DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM (supra) and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS (supra) supports petitioner's contention to impound IGPA. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent's contention that IGPA dated 16.04.2007 would not be used for any other purpose except to negotiate terms and to agree to sell the schedule property in his absolute discretion, thinks proper, agree upon and to enter into any agreement or agreements for such sale or sales and/or to cancel and or repudiate the same including engaging any advocate/counsel, to execute the vakalatnama and memo of appearance, to give necessary instructions in respect of litigations pertaining to the schedule property (clause V of the IGPA) in terms of IGPA and to that effect an affidavit has been filed on 17.02.2021. Merely filing such an affidavit does not allow Sri Muniraju or Smt. Narasamma in not stamping the IGPA dated 16.04.2007. Even assuming that IGPA dated 16.04.2007 is withdrawn by Smt. Narasamma at this hour, the defect cannot be cured from the date of execution of the IGPA dated 16.04.2007. 16. This Court in the case of K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma, reported in 2000 (4) Kar.L.J. 55 C. which aptly applies to the case of hand, has held as under; R.V. Raveendran, J., Held: A combined reading of Sections 33, 34, 35, 37 and 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act requires the following procedure to be adopted by a Court while considering the question of admissibility of a document with reference to the Stamp Act; (a) When a document comes up before the Court, it has to examine and determine whether it is properly stamped. When the other side objects to it, the Court should consider such objection and hear both sides; (b) After hearing, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the document has been duly stamped, it shall proceed to admit the document into evidence; (c) on the other hand, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, it shall pass an order holding that the document is not duly stamped and determine the Stamp duty/deficit stamp duty and penalty to be paid and fix a date to enable the party who produces the document to pay the Stamp duty/deficit Stamp duty plus penalty; (d) If the party pays the duty and penalty the Court shall certify that proper amount of duty and penalty has been levied and record the name and address of the person paying the said duty and penalty and then admit the document in evidence as provided under Section 41(2); and the Court shall send an authenticated copy of the instrument to the District Registrar together with a Certificate and the amount collected as duty and penalty, as provided under Section 37(1)(e). If the party does not pay the duty and penalty, the Court will have to pass an order impounding the document and send the instrument in original, to the District Registrar for being dealt in accordance with law as per Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. 17. In view of the above analysis of facts and legal issues, revisional authority - Deputy Commissioner has erred in rejecting petitioner's application to impound the IGPA dated 16.04.2007. Hence, the following is passed: ORDER (i) The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revn. Petn. No. 18/2007-08 dated 10.10.2012 vide Annexure - A stands set-aside. (ii) First respondent - Sri Muniraju being the IGPA Holder of Smt. Narasamma or Smt. Naramsamma is hereby directed to surrender original IGPA dated 16.04.2007 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar so as to enable the Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar to follow the procedures stipulated under Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Section 37 relates to 'how Instruments which are improperly stamped be dealt with'. Procedure of surrendering of original IGPA be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Procedure of surrendering of original IGPA be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar is hereby directed to proceed in terms of Sections 37 and 39 and allied provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of original IGPA dated 16.04.2007. (iii) Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.