JUDGMENT
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5-7-2004 in I.A.No.170 of 2004 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, by which the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Sections 35 and 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 151 C.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.7 of 2001. This suit was filed by the plaintiff for Specific Performance of an agreement of sale dated 29-1-2001. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.170 of 2004 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, to send the suit document i.e., agreement of sale dated 29-1-2001 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, for impounding. The respondents 1 to 4 filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material available on record and on hearing counsel for both the parties, dismissed the application by order dated 5-7-2004. Assailing the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the trial Court has missed to note the proviso to Section 38(2) of the Act and thereby erred in dismissing the application. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in CHILAKURI GANGULAPPA V REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLE & OTHER, in support of his submissions.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the trial Court is justified in refusing to send the document-agreement of sale to the Revenue Divisional Officer, in view of the direction given by this Court in C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003.
5.Earlier, the petitioner-plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003 against the order dated 18-11-2003 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2001 with regard to admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 29-1-2001. This Court disposed the said C.R.P. directing the trial Court to admit the document in evidence subject to the condition of the petitioner paying the impounding and other necessary fees. I deem it appropriate to refer the order passed in C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003, which reads as follows:
“This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 18-11-2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki in O.S.No.7 of 2001 sustaining the objection raised by the defendant.
By the above said orders, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the agreement of sale dated 29-1-2001 is not admissible in evidence without impounding.
Having heard both the counsel and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the document in question, as observed by the learned trial Judge, is not admissible in evidence without impounding. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to admit the document in evidence subject to the condition of the petitioner paying the impounding and other necessary fees.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.”
6. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.170 of 2004 under Sections 38 and 35 of the Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. to send the document-agreement of sale dated 29-1-2001 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, for impounding. The trail Court dismissed the application on four grounds. Firstly, the petitioner filed a similar application earlier and withdrew the same. Secondly, the direction given by this Court in C.R.P. No.6716 of 2003 is that the Court itself has to impound the document-agreement of sale. Thirdly, the revenue authorities are not prompt in impounding the documents whenever they are sent to them. Fourthly, the Court itself is empowered to impound the documents. It is no more in dispute that earlier application has been withdrawn by the plaintiff before it came up for hearing. Therefore, the withdrawal of earlier application does not come in any way for the plaintiff in making subsequent application for the self same relief. This Court in C.R.P. No. 6716 of 2003 directed the trial Court to admit the document in evidence subject to the condition of the petitioner paying the impounding and other necessary fees.
7. There is no positive direction to the trial Court to impound the document by itself without sending it to the Collector. I have gone through the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003, whereunder the trial Court is directed to admit the document in evidence subject to the condition of the petitioner paying the impounding and other necessary fees. It does not indicate that the Court itself has to assess the stamp duty and penalty on the disputed document i.e., agreement to sale. The other reason assigned by the trial Court is that the revenue authorities are not acting promptly in impounding the document. The general impression of the trial Court cannot be a ground for refusal of the request of the petitioner-plaintiff to send the document to Collector for impounding. The last ground on which the trial Court dismissed the application is, the trial Court itself is competent to impound the document. It has been held by a single Judge of this Court in Nalajala Jagannadham v. Veerepally Mangamma, that the Court cannot compel a party to pay stamp duty when it wanted to send a document to Collector under Section 38(2) of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in CHINTALAPUDI ANNAPURNAMMA & ANOTHER V ANDUKURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY & OTHERS, has held that if the party does not want to pay the duty and penalty as determined by Court, it is open for him to ask the document to be sent to the Collector, but till the duty and penalty is determined by the Collector and paid by the party the document cannot be admitted in evidence.
8. The trial Court has misread the earlier order passed in C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003 and thereby committed error in dismissing the application. The direction given by this Court in C.R.P.No.6716 of 2003 has been extracted in the aforesaid paras of this order.
9. In view of the above discussion, I find that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Sections 38 and 35 of the Act is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.170 of 2004 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 and consequently the trial Court is directed to send the document i.e., agreement of sale, to the Collector for impounding. No costs.