- (1.) THE contesting opposite par ties had filed suit for ejectment of the peti tioner from a shop fully described in the plaint (Annexure No. 3), on the ground-that the pe titioner was inducted as tenant in the shop since 20-10-1992 on terms and conditions enumerated in an agreement dated 20-10-1992.
(2.) THE petitioner after service of notice in the first instance without filing written state ment moved application that the above agree ment was insufficiently stamped and, there fore, the same be impounded and charged ac cordingly as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899. THE learned trial court rejected the said applica tion by means of order dated 10-12-1997. THE revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 6-3-2001. THE petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court against the said orders. 3-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that in view of Section 33 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document has to be impounded before embarking upon any point arising in the case for adjudication. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties urged that since the petitioner was inducted as tenant on the basis of allotment order, the agreement has nothing to do with the case and that the plain tiffs-opposite parties are not relying on that document for eviction of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 33 (1) and (2) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is as follows:- "33. Examination and impounding of in struments.- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evi dence, and, every person-in-charge of a pub lic office; except an officer of police, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opin ion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it ap pears 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 India when such instru ment was executed or first executed: Provided that- (a ). . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . " 7. THE application of the petitioner for im pounding has been rejected mainly on the ground that said document is not a lease-deed but some other agreement although there is clause for enhancement of the rent. THE court was of the view that as the tenancy was cre ated on the basis of allotment order and the agreement is not a lease deed, therefore, it could not be said to be in sufficiently stamped. It is also mentioned in the order of learned revisional court that landlords have not filed the said agreement of their own but the same was got summoned by the petitioner where after the same was filed. 8. In my opinion, the approach of the learned courts below was clearly erroneous. THE impounding of the document under Sec tion 33 of the Indian Stamp Act is not depen dent upon its relevancy or admissibility of the document and also on the fact whether docu ment was filed by the party itself or it was produced on being summoned at the instance of the other party. 9. Section 33 as reproduced above provides that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence be fore whom any instrument chargeable, 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. Again sub-rule (2) says that for this purpose such person shall examine every in strument 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 India when such instrument was executed or first executed. 10. Thus, according to above provision, in what ever manner the document was received in the court, it was duty of the court to have examined the document whether the same was required to be stamped and for what value. It cannot be disputed that court has power to receive the evidence. Relevancy/admissibility of the document has also no relevance for examination or impounding the instrument. THErefore, every person having by law or au thority to receive the evidence other than the Magistrate or Judge in a criminal case as per provision has to examine the document in light of Section 33. THE Magistrate or Judge of a criminal court as per proviso has no doubt discretion in this regard but except the crimi nal court no other authority has any discre tion. 11. It appears that learned courts below failed to look at Section 33 and in this way they failed to examine the matter in light of Section 33 and, therefore, misled in holding that document was not liable to be impounded for the reason it was not filed by the party concerned and the same was not being relied upon for the purpose of eviction of the peti tioner. Since very approach of the courts be low was erroneous and they failed to exam ine the matter in right perspective. When the petitioner raised question of insufficiency of the document, the court instead of going in any other question, should have examined the matter to find out whether the document was of such nature that it required stamping and if so under which provision stamp was re quired to be paid and then to decide whether the stamp on the document was sufficient or not in light of the provision. In case amount of stamp under the relevant provision is suf ficient, there is no need of impounding but when the court comes in light of the relevant provisions that it is not properly stamped, then the court has to impound the same and proceed in accordance with provisions of the Act. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 10-12-1997 and 16-3-2001 are set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned trial court to decide the application afresh in light of the observa tion made hereinabove. Petition allowed. .;