THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2177 of 2014 Dated: 18.07.2014 Between:
G. Pullaiah .. Petitioner and B. Venkata Dhana Laxmi and another.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Y.Krishna Mohan Rao Counsel for the respondents: --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 18.03.2014 in I.A.No.232 of 2014 in O.S.No.232 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Respondent No.1, who is defendant No.2, sought to introduce the purported agreement of sale dated 20.05.2001, prepared on an unstamped white paper, in evidence. Even before she has filed an application for sending the said agreement of sale for impoundment and collection of stamp duty, the lower Court has allowed the said document to be marked in evidence through D.W.1, on 07.03.2013, subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty. Later, respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.232 of 2014 for sending the said agreement of sale to the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration for collection of deficit stamp duty. The lower Court allowed the said application, by the order under revision.
Mr. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has not followed proper procedure and committed a serious error in marking the agreement of sale as Ex.B5, even before the same was impounded and stamp duty was collected.
I find merit in this submission. The lower Court has failed to follow proper procedure by marking the document even before it was impounded. The lower Court has failed to keep in mind that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence unless it was impounded and stamp duty was collected by competent authority. This Court is unable to appreciate the hurry with which the lower Court has proceeded in marking the document even before the same was impounded.
Be that as it may, even if the document is directed to be demarked, the same can be marked again on it being impounded and stamp duty paid. Hence, instead of reversing the action of the lower Court, I deem it appropriate to direct that Ex.B5 shall not be considered in evidence unless respondent No.1-defendant No.2 files proof of impoundment of Ex.B5 and payment of the required stamp duty.
Subject to the above directions, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
As sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3038 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th July, 2014 IBL