ORDER : Lalitha Kanneganti, J. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XV in O.S.No.153/2017 dated 27.06.2019 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.153/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, seeking a decree of specific performance of contract dated 10.11.2014 by directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the plaint, it is contended that the mother of the defendants was the sole owner of the property and an Agreement of Sale dated 10.11.2014 was executed between the plaintiff and the mother of the defendants wherein the 2 nd defendant is one of the signatory as witness to the document which has been registered before the Sub-Registrar office at Holenarasipura. The sale consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs.2,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of Cheque No.156481. Thereafter, the mother of the defendants passed away and when the plaintiff had requested the defendants to execute the Sale Deed, the defendants have failed to execute the same. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trial Court has framed issues on 03.10.2018 and the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff on 05.11.2018. The plaintiff had entered the witness box on 05.11.2018 and the documents that are produced by the plaintiff including the 2014 Agreement were admitted in evidence and was marked as Exhibit P-1 and it is the case that the respondents did not raise any objections on any of the documents marked into evidence. On 20.12.2018, the plaintiff prayed time to lead further evidence. Subsequently on 05.02.2019, the plaintiff marked additional documents and the matter was posted to 19.03.2019 for cross-examination of PW-1. 4. Thereafter, on 19.03.2019, defendant Nos.1 and 5 filed an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impounding of the 2014 Agreement for collection of duty and penalty. The plaintiff had filed his objections to the said application and contended that since the 2014 Agreement has already been marked as an exhibit, there is no question of paying duty and penalty and the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The plaintiff had filed his objections to the said application and contended that since the 2014 Agreement has already been marked as an exhibit, there is no question of paying duty and penalty and the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The application came to be allowed by way of the impugned order and the plaintiff is before this Court questioning the same. 5. This Court has perused the order impugned. The trial Court had observed that it is the specific case of the defendants that after the document is marked in evidence, it was noticed that the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale and further on reference to the payment of duty only a sum of Rs.200/- has been collected apart from scanning fee and other fee and sub registrar ought to have collected the amount namely the stamp duty on the market value of the property. On that ground, the defendant prays Ex.P1 to be impounded for collection of proper duty and penalty as envisaged under Section 33 and 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act. The trial Court had also observed that the market value of the property mentioned in the agreement is Rs.2,00,000/- but the same is written on stamp paper of Rs.6/-. As per Article 5(e)(i) read with Article 20(III) of the Act, the proper duty payable would be eight percent of the consideration mentioned in the agreement. Eight percent of Rs.2,00,000/- would be Rs.16,000/-. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that the proper duty payable is Rs.16,000/-. Further, the trial Court had observed that the suit agreement is insufficiently stamped as contended by the defendants and held that the plaintiff has already paid stamp duty of Rs.706/- and the plaintiff ought to have paid sufficient stamp duty on the market value i.e., 8% on Rs.2,00,000/- which comes to 16,000/- minus Rs.706/-, the plaintiff has to pay Rs.15,294/-. The ten times penalty would be Rs.1,52,940/- (Rs.15,294x10) and Rs.1,52,940/- plus Rs.15,294/- would be duty and penalty and it comes to Rs.1,68,234/-. Therefore, the trial Court had directed the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,234/- towards deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty and accordingly, application was allowed. 6. The ten times penalty would be Rs.1,52,940/- (Rs.15,294x10) and Rs.1,52,940/- plus Rs.15,294/- would be duty and penalty and it comes to Rs.1,68,234/-. Therefore, the trial Court had directed the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,234/- towards deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty and accordingly, application was allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondents/defendants has raised no objections at the time of marking the agreement on 05.11.2018 or on the next two occasions when the case was listed, i.e., on 20.12.2018 and on 05.02.2019. Once an instrument has been admitted in evidence without there being objection at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, then such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 58 of the Act, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It is submitted that only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the application has been filed. 7. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Javer Chand and Others Vs. Pukhraj Surana , [ AIR 1961 SC 1655 ] “In our opinion, the High Court misdirected itself, in its view of the provisions of s. 36 of the Stamp Act. Section 36 is in these terms:- "Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." That section is categorical in its terms that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. The only exception recognised by the section is the class of cases contemplated by s. 61, which is not material to the present controversy. Section 36 does not admit of other exceptions. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Section 36 does not admit of other exceptions. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far- reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. The record in this case discloses the fact that the hundis were marked as Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 and bore the endorsement 'admitted in evidence' under the signature of the Court. It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document has been inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, s. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.” 8. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gangappa and Another Vs. Fakkirappa , [ (2019) 3 SCC 788 ] “18. The above view of the Karnataka High Court that there is no discretion vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting duty under Section 33, is correct. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gangappa and Another Vs. Fakkirappa , [ (2019) 3 SCC 788 ] “18. The above view of the Karnataka High Court that there is no discretion vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting duty under Section 33, is correct. The word used in the said proviso is ‘shall’. Sections 33 and 34 clearly indicate that penalty imposed has to be 10 times. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Digambar Warty and others (supra) has rightly interpreted the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act. We, thus, are of the view that the High Court in the impugned judgment did not commit any error in relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in Digambar Warty and others (supra). We thus has to uphold the above view expressed in the impugned judgment.” 9. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Digambar Warty and Others Vs. The District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District and Another , [ILR 2013 KAR 2099] “36. This provision refers to the power of the Civil Court which admits the documents in evidence. The main Section is couched in the negative. Unless the instrument is duly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. As an exception, the proviso provides for payment of duty and penalty. In the matter of collection of duty and penalty no discretion is vested with the authority admitting such an instrument in evidence. The duty payable on the instrument is prescribed by statute. Therefore, there is no question of any discretion being vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting the duty. Once the duty payable is ascertained from the statute, no discretion is vested with the authority admitting the document in evidence, in the matter of imposition of duty and penalty. The word used in the said proviso is 'shall'. It is mandatory. Once the duty payable is ascertained from the statute, no discretion is vested with the authority admitting the document in evidence, in the matter of imposition of duty and penalty. The word used in the said proviso is 'shall'. It is mandatory. However, Section 35 makes it clear, that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence without there being objection at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, then such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 58, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Section 58 deals with the power of the Appellate Court to review the finding recorded by the original Court under Section 34 of the Act, either suo motu or on the application of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 36 of the Act deals with admission of improperly stamped instrument. The State Government may make rules providing that, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its execution. 38. The reason is obvious. Generally, it is the Civil Court which receives the instrument in evidence. Admission of instrument in evidence is not proof of the said instrument. If the execution of the instrument is denied by the executant or the opposite party, burden is cast on the person producing the said instrument to prove that the instrument was executed in accordance with law. He may have to examine the attesting witnesses if there is any, or he may request the Court to compare the signature found on the said instrument with the admitted signatures in the case or he may request for sending the said instrument containing the signature for the opinion of the handwriting expert. Therefore the original document, after it being impounded and the party paying the duty and penalty cannot be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, the law provides for a authenticated copy of such an instrument being sent to the Deputy Commissioner. However, in all other cases, it is the original of the document impounded which is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner. However, in all other cases, it is the original of the document impounded which is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner. The object being, the said provision should not come in the way of speedy disposal of cases before the Court. 39. Section 38 of the Act deals with the power of the Deputy Commissioner to refund the penalty paid under Sub- section (1) of Section 37. When a copy of an instrument is sent to the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 37, he may, if he thinks fit, refund any portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees which has been paid in respect of such instrument. The reason being, when a person receiving the evidence impounds the document and collects the duty under Section 34 of the Act, which in most of the cases, is the Civil Court, the time of the Court should not be wasted in deciding, whether it is a fit case where penalty of ten times the duty is to be levied or a case is made out for imposition of lesser penalty. Therefore, the Legislature consciously has used the word, 'shall' taking away any discretion in the Civil Court in the matter of imposition of penalty equal to ten time the duty payable. However, the Civil Court after impounding the document, collecting the duty and penalty, is under a statutory obligation to send it to the Deputy Commissioner under Sub- section (1) of Section 37. Therefore, when such an instrument is so sent to the Deputy Commissioner, he has been conferred the power to reduce the penalty already paid before the Civil Court. One of the reasons why such a discretion is not vested with the Civil Court is, it is the revenue authorities who are more concerned with the collection of revenue, and that is not the job of the Civil Courts. However, if a document which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped is tendered in evidence in Civil Court and admitted in evidence, then the very purpose of the Stamp Act itself would be defeated. Therefore, a power is vested in Civil Court to impound the document. In fact, it is an obligation cast on the Civil Court by the statute. However, if a document which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped is tendered in evidence in Civil Court and admitted in evidence, then the very purpose of the Stamp Act itself would be defeated. Therefore, a power is vested in Civil Court to impound the document. In fact, it is an obligation cast on the Civil Court by the statute. But, the legislature does not want to burden the Civil Court to go into the question, whether a case for payment of lesser penalty is made out or not. The Civil Courts cannot be expected to be wasting their precious judicial time in deciding matters which exclusively fall within the sphere of revenue authorities and under the scheme of the Act, which has to be decided by them. Therefore, it prescribes that after determining the duty payable on such instrument, to collect the duty with ten times penalty and then transmit the document to the Deputy Commissioner with duty and penalty so collected. Thereafter, a power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 of the Act to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity to the person who has paid duty and penalty to extend the benefit of reduction of penalty. Such a reduction in penalty is available to both the documents i.e., tendered before the Civil Court or produced directly before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33. No discrimination in law is made between these two types of documents. However, there appears to be some conflicting opinion in this regard.” 10. Relying on these judgments, he submits that once a document is admitted in evidence, it is not open for anybody to dispute the same. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants had advanced arguments in support of the order impugned and he submits that when a particular document is insufficiently stamped, it requires to be impounded, as per the provisions of the Stamp Act, it is the duty of the Court to do it. Such an objection is not raised earlier cannot be a ground. It is submitted that they are not seeking any order to recall the order of admission of the said document and the same is not permissible. 12. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Such an objection is not raised earlier cannot be a ground. It is submitted that they are not seeking any order to recall the order of admission of the said document and the same is not permissible. 12. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the document is an insufficiently stamped document as per the Karnataka Stamp Act and it is also an admitted fact that the defendants have not raised any objection with regard to the admission of the document. Even now, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff appears to be, though it is insufficiently stamped and the stamp duty and penalty is as the same was admitted in evidence, at this point of time, it is not open to revisit the said order and question of impounding the document will not arise. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. It is the duty of the Court to see that a particular document which is insufficiently stamped has to be impounded by paying the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Just because the objection is not raised, it will not absolve the Court of its responsibility. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that a document which is admitted in evidence cannot be revised or reviewed by the Court. 13. This Court in case of Smt. Savithramma R.C. Vs. M/s.Vijaya Bank and Another , [ILR 2015 KAR 1984] had dealt with a similar issue. The Court at paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 had observed as follows: “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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 8. In the instant case, though the Trial Court has said that the documents are duly stamped, it has not discussed about the nature of the documents in order to find out whether it is duly stamped. Only after the said exercise, the Trial Court could have come to the conclusion whether the duty paid on the instrument is sufficient or not. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to undertake the above exercise and pass appropriate orders and to proceed under Section 33 of the Act read with Section 37(2) of the Stamp Act, if the documents are found to be insufficiently stamped.” 14. The above referred judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case. The document which is insufficiently stamped and admitted in evidence, objection regarding the admissibility cannot be raised. Subsequently, but it does not fade away the obligation to impound the document. In this case, a document is admitted without impounding the instrument and the Court had rightly fixed the stamp duty and penalty. The judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed ii. All I.As., in this writ petition, shall stand closed.