ORDER : G.Narendar, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.04.2024, rendered on the application i.e. I.A.No.675 of 2016 in O.S.No.273 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, whereunder the application, preferred under Order XIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC praying to demark Ex.A.1, was rejected. 3. The document Ex.A.1 is alleged to be an unregistered gift deed, dated 21.04.2013. The marking of the document is contested on the ground that it is not sufficiently stamped and also bad for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 4. Order XIII Rule 3 reads as under: “3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents.- The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.” 5. The trial Court has placed reliance on the ruling rendered in the case of Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N.Hemalatha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 970 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath, Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6141 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021. and also the ruling of the Telangana High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kaladevi v. Y. Anithi Reddy, Judgment of the Telangana High Court, dated 06.08.2019.. 6. The appreciation of law on the point by the trial Court does not in any manner detract from the right of the revision petitioners to canvas the same in an appeal, in the event the document is appreciated and held against the petitioners. Mere marking of the document would not dilute the rigors of either Section 17 or Section 49 of the Registration Act. That apart, the High Court of Karnataka in similar circumstances while dealing with the sufficiency of stamps in respect of marked document has been pleased to hold in the case of Sri R.Mahesh v. Sri B.P. Venugopal, ILR 2018 KAR 3029 as under: “13. On perusal of the application, it is seen that the case canvassed is not against the admission of the documents, but that they are insufficiently stamped. On perusal of the application, it is seen that the case canvassed is not against the admission of the documents, but that they are insufficiently stamped. If that being the case, a duty was cast on the Court below to render a declaration as to whether the document is chargable to duty and if so, whether is it sufficiently stamped. This duty is cast by the provisions of Section 58 of the Act and sub-Section (2) of Section 58 provides for impounding. The scope for impounding is for the limited purpose of forwarding it to the Deputy Commissioner/Competent authority who intum shall institute prosecution as per sub-Section (4) of Section 58 of the Act. Hence, from a reading of the provisions of Section 58 of Act, it is apparent that the Trial Court is obligated and a duty cast upon it to render a finding as to whether it is a compulsorily registrable document and if so whether it is sufficiently stamped. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order calls for interference. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the observations made by this Court in the ruling in the case of Smt. Savithramma. R.C. v. Vijaya Bank [2015 (4) AKR 45.] wherein this Court in similar circumstances was pleased to hold as under: “4. Interpreting this provision, this Court, in the case of Lakshminarayanachar v. Narayan, held as under: “11. Now, the document is described in S. 33 as a document which is produced before the authority or comes before the authority in the performance of its functions. The principal function with reference to which production or reception of documents is mentioned in S.33, so far as Courts are concerned, is the function appertaining to the exercise of the authority of taking evidence. Production before a Court is a voluntary act, an act accompanied by the mental element of a desire to depend upon it as a piece of evidence in the litigation. Where the production of document is compelled by the Court, such document will not come within the description of ‘document produced’ but comes within the description of ‘document which comes in the performance of its function’ of taking evidence. In normal circumstances, parties produce documents voluntarily for the purpose of relying upon them as pieces of evidence. 14. Where the production of document is compelled by the Court, such document will not come within the description of ‘document produced’ but comes within the description of ‘document which comes in the performance of its function’ of taking evidence. In normal circumstances, parties produce documents voluntarily for the purpose of relying upon them as pieces of evidence. 14. The position therefore, according to the scheme of the statute, is that when a document chargeable to duty and produced into Court in connection with a proceeding before it is found by that Court to be either not stamped at all or is insufficiently stamped, it is bound to impound it. But the idea of impounding is to enforce collection of duty or deficient duty together with penalty. When a document has come before Court for the purpose of being used in evidence, the first jurisdiction of determining the duty and penalty is that of the Court. It is only when that stage has crossed and the document is not tendered in evidence that it ceases to be a document impounded by the Court which by law has authority to receive evidence and has admitted the same in evidence; though the first part of the description applies to the document, the second part has ceased to be applicable. It is then and then only that a document comes within the description of “in every other case” contained in subsec.(2) of S.37. 19. The correct position therefore, in law, would be that documents which are liable to be impounded should be impounded as soon as their liability to be impounded comes to the notice of the Presiding Officer. He should retain them till the date of the trial. If they are tendered in evidence, he should act under the proviso to S.34. Sec. 37(1) imposes a duty on him to send an authenticated copy of such instrument together with a certificate stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof to the Deputy Commissioner. If they are not admitted in evidence, he will then act under sub-sec. (2) of S. 37 and send the original document to the Deputy Commissioner for assessment of duty and penalty.” 5. If they are not admitted in evidence, he will then act under sub-sec. (2) of S. 37 and send the original document to the Deputy Commissioner for assessment of duty and penalty.” 5. Again, this Court in the case of K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma, reported in 2000 (4) Kar LJ 55 dealing with the duty of the Court under Section 33 of the Act held as under: 9. When a document is produced and sought to be exhibited, the Court should decide whether it is admissible or not immediately, so that the parties will know whether such document could be relied on or not. If a document is not admitted, by refusing to mark it, the party may take steps to let in other relevant and permissible evidence to prove the document. On the other hand, if the document is marked in evidence, the parties may not choose to let in further evidence on that aspect. When the question of marking of the document is left open, the parties will have to proceed with the evidence with considerable uncertainty. There fore, Courts should consider and decide the question of admissibility of a document sought to be exhibited, before proceeding further with the evidence. If the Court has any doubt, it may hear arguments on the question. 10. A duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every document that is sought to be marked in evidence. The nomenclature of the document is not decisive. The question of admissibility (with reference to Section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act, or Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act and Section 49 of Registration Act) will have to be decided by reading the document and deciding its nature and classification. The tendency to mark documents without inspection and verification should be eschewed. Even while recording ex-parte evidence or while recording evidence in the absence of the Counsel for the other side, the Court should be vigilant and examine and ascertain the nature of the document proposed to be marked and ensure that it is a document which is admissible. The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty on the Court to examine the document to find out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not. It should be borne in mind that once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be called in question thereafter on the ground that it was not duly stamped. Once the Court admits a document even wrongly, such admission becomes final and cannot be reopened. Hence, the need for diligence not only on the part of the opposite Counsel, but also on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act. 11. 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 with in accordance with law as per Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. 6. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the decisions, it is clear that a duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every document, which is produced or comes before him in the performance of his functions. On such examination, if it appears to the Judge that such instrument is not duly stamped, an obligation is cast upon him to impound the same. This duty is to be performed by the Judge irrespective of the fact whether any objection to its marking is raised or not. Hence, there is a need for diligence on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates that an instrument, which is not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence. If any objection is taken to the admissibility of the evidence, it shall be decided then and there. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates that an instrument, which is not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence. If any objection is taken to the admissibility of the evidence, it shall be decided then and there. If this document is found to be insufficiently stamped, then in terms of the proviso (a) to Section 34, the Court shall call upon the person, who is tendering the said document to pay duty and ten times penalty and thereafter admit the document in evidence. If duty and penalty is not paid, the document shall not be admitted in evidence. If such an objection is not taken at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, and the insufficiently stamped document is admitted in evidence then Section 35 of the Act provides that such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It has nothing to do with impounding the document. A duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every document that is sought to be marked in evidence. The nomenclature of the document is not decisive. The question of admissibility will have to be decided by reading the document and deciding its nature and classification. The tendency to mark documents without inspection and verification should be eschewed. Even while recording ex-parte evidence or while recording evidence in the absence of the Counsel for the other side, the Court should be vigilant and examine and ascertain the nature of the document proposed to be marked and ensure that it is a document which is admissible. The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty on the Court to examine the document to find out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not. Section 37 of the Act provides what the Judge has to do when he has collected duty and penalty under Section 34 of the Act and what he has to do, if the case does not fall under Section 34 of the Act. Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act reads thus: 37. Section 37 of the Act provides what the Judge has to do when he has collected duty and penalty under Section 34 of the Act and what he has to do, if the case does not fall under Section 34 of the Act. Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act reads thus: 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. 7. If the Judge has acted under Section 34 of the Act and collected duty and penalty and admitted the document in evidence, then under sub-Section (1) of Section 37, 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 such person as he may appoint in this behalf If the Judge does not act under Section 34 of the Act, but the document is insufficiently stamped and admitted in evidence though objection regarding admissibility cannot be raised subsequently that does not take away his obligation to impound the document under Section 33 of the Act. If the document is insufficiently stamped and if the Court has admitted such instrument in evidence without collecting duty and penalty, then the Judge shall proceed under Section 33 of the Act and impound the document. After impounding the document, he shall 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. Therefore, impounding the document should not be confused to admission of document without objection regarding admissibility or on such objection being taken after collecting the duty and penalty.” 16. Therefore, impounding the document should not be confused to admission of document without objection regarding admissibility or on such objection being taken after collecting the duty and penalty.” 16. From a bare and conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, it is apparent that both the Court and any such Authority before whom the document is produced are empowered to and duty bound to impound the document which would result in the document being made unavailable for consideration pending payment of necessary stamp duty and penalty. In the event of such document being marked on account of inadvertence or on the Court failing to detect the same on scrutiny, the Act provides for collection of the duty and penalty on such documents, which have evaded scrutiny as provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the Act. 17. A plain reading of sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the Act makes it apparent that the Court is not rendered powerless or functus officio on account of an un-registered or insufficiently stamped document being marked and being admitted in evidence. On the contrary, the provisions of Section 58(2) mandate the Court below to record a declaration to the effect that the document already marked is one on which the duty and penalty or higher duty and penalty is chargeable. On the Court recording such a declaration, it is thereafter required to impound the same for the purpose of forwarding it to the Deputy Commissioner, who thereafter shall notwithstanding anything contained in the order admitting such instrument prosecute the person for any offences under the Act. The proviso to sub-Section 4 of Section 58 of the Act further provides that no such prosecution shall be instituted provided the amount including duty and penalty is paid to the Deputy Commissioner. 18. Thus, from the ambit of Section 58 of the Act, it is apparent that the Trial Court has rendered an erroneous order. In respect of a document, which is already marked, the Court is entitled to subsequently hold it to be a document which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped and it shall also determine the amount of duty with which such instrument is chargeable. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn, keeping in view the purpose of the Act, which is to secure the revenue of the State. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn, keeping in view the purpose of the Act, which is to secure the revenue of the State. This Court draws sustenance for the afore stated view in the light of the observations of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Company [ (1969) 1 SCC 597 .], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 7 observed as follows: “7. The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments : It is not enacted to all a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of the initial defect in the instrument. Viewed in that light the scheme is clear. Section 35 of the Stamp Act operates as bar to an unstamped instrument being admitted in evidence or being acted upon; Section 40 provides the procedure for instruments being impounded, sub-section (1) of Section 42 provides for certifying that an instrument is duly stamped, and subsection (2) of Section 42 enacts the consequences resulting from such certification. 19. It is held that the Court below is entitled to impound a document already admitted in terms of Section 58 for the limited purpose of ascertaining the duty and calling upon for payment of the same and also refer it to the Deputy Commissioner for prosecution only. The order impounding the admitted document under Section 58 will in no way impinge or entrench upon the sanctity of the order admitting the documents nor will it amount to a review of the order admitting the documents.” 7. The application is not only canvassed on the basis of marking being contrary to the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act but also has been insufficiently stamped. 8. In that view of the matter, the trial Court shall re-examine the marked document and in the event it is a document that is liable to be impounded, the trial Court shall take necessary action in that regard and pass appropriate orders for impounding and consequent action. 9. 8. In that view of the matter, the trial Court shall re-examine the marked document and in the event it is a document that is liable to be impounded, the trial Court shall take necessary action in that regard and pass appropriate orders for impounding and consequent action. 9. The Civil Revision Petition stands ordered accordingly in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.