S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THESE are two special appeals, one arising out of Writ Petition No. 620 (MS) of 2009 and the other arising out an order passed in Writ Petition No. 2358 (MS) of 2009. Initially, Writ Petition No. 620 (MS) of 2009 was filed challenging the very initiation of proceedings under Section 33 of the Stamps Act but during the pendency of the writ petition, final orders were passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), therefore, the same became the subject matter of challenge in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 2358 (MS) of 2009. The Writ Petition No. 2358 (MS) of 2009 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.5.09 and the other Writ Petition No. 620 (MS) of 2009 has been dismissed on 20.5.09. The two petitions were interlinked raising, in fact, the same questions, namely, the competence of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) to initiate proceedings under Section 33 of the Act, as according to the appellants, it was a case where information was asked for, by a third person, namely, Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, which could be only referable to Section 31 of the Act. The sequence of events relevant for the purpose of the present special appeals can be stated as follows: A deed of assignment was executed and registered at Bombay between the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and State Bank of India, on which, as per the case of the appellants, requisite stamp duty as was prevalent and was required, was paid. However, an information was sought for, by Sanjeev Singh, Advocate at Lucknow from the Collector as to what should be the amount of stamp duty, which should be paid on the aforesaid deed, copy of which was also furnished by him to the Collector. The Collector, on his turn, entrusted this matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps and asked for a report. According to the appellants, no report was submitted, but, in fact, the matter was considered by the Deputy Inspector General (Registration), who looking to the deed, expressed that according to him, the stamp duty should have been paid @ 8% and, therefore, directed that appropriate proceedings be initiated and orders be passed in accordance with law. Since the orders have finally been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) under Section 33 of the Act on 26.3.09, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions saying that the appellants have an adequate efficacious statutory remedy of filing appeal against the order passed under Section 56 of the Act. It is this order, which is under challenge in the special appeals. Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sandeep Singhvi, reiterated his arguments about the competence of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) to initiate the proceedings on various grounds, leading to the inference that since the initiation of proceedings is bad in law, therefore, the orders passed cannot be sustained on merits. We need not reproduce all the arguments as we are also of the considered opinion that whatever pleas are available to the appellants, the same may be raised by challenging the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), in the appeal also. However, it would be pertinent to mention here that Sri H.P. Srivastava refuted the arguments and said that contents of the deed having come to the knowledge of the Deputy Inspector General (Registration), copy of the deed being before the Deputy Inspector General (Registration) and after perusing the contents, if he felt satisfied that it is a matter, where enquiry is to be initiated, he committed no wrong nor he committed anything beyond his jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order. In the alternative, counsel for the appellants also made an effort to advance their arguments on the merits of the case, but in view of the fact that this Court is not inclined to entertain the special appeals and to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which protect the interest of both the parties and is not prejudicial to the interest of any of the parties, we do not intend to enter into these questions and leave the same open to be raised before the appellate authority, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders. The order passed under Section 33 of the Act is appellable and there is no dispute about the same. That being so, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge do not call for any interference in special appeal. The special appeals are dismissed. We may clarify that we have not addressed ourselves on the merits of the claim of either parties and any observation made by us, if has the effect of touching the merits of the case, the same shall not be taken into account by the appellate authority while deciding the controversy, as may be raised before him in accordance with law.;