( 1 ) PETITIONER filed O. S. No. 1776 of 2001, against the respondents, in the Court of iv Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, hyderabad, for specific performance of an agreement, dated 15-1-2001. The trial of the suit commenced. Along with an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner filed the agreement, dated 15-1-2001. On entertaining a doubt, as to its admissibility, on account of its not being properly stamped, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 681 of 2002, under section 151 C. P. C. , requesting the court to record a finding, as to the admissibility of that document, with reference to the sufficiency of stamp duty. Respondents 11 and 12 contested the matter. The trial Court passed a reasoned order dated 26-2-2003, in that i. A. directing that the document is marked as ex. A-1, subject to the objection as to the stamp duty. The Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO) of that court, was directed to assess the stamp duty and penalty payable on the document. The petitioner was given an option, either to pay the stamp duty and penalty that may be determined by the Court, or to get the document impounded, by the revenue authorities.

( 2 ) AT a subsequent stage, the petitioner requested the court to return the document, on the ground that it wants to get it impounded, by the revenue authorities. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division bench of this Court in Chintalapudi annapurnamma v. Andukuri Punnayya sastry the trial court passed an order, dated 11-3-2003, holding that once the document was admitted in evidence, it was impermissible for the petitioner to take it back, or to get it impounded, through the revenue authorities. The same is challenged in this revision.

( 3 ) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document cannot be said to have been admitted or received in evidence as yet, since it was dependant upon payment of stamp duty, that may be determined by the CMO. He submits that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act") gives an option, to a person relying upon an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document, to pay the deficit stamp duty, as may be determined by the court itself, under section 35, or to get it impounded, under section 33 of the Act, through the revenue authorities. He contends that the trial court itself recognized such an option, when it passed the order in I. A. No. 681 of 2002, and that it had virtually reviewed its own order by refusing to return the document. He submits thatthejudgment of this Court in Chintalapudi annapurnamma scase did not prohibit such options.

( 4 ) SRI J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents 11 and 12, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner itself filed an application, for determination of the quantum of stamp duty payable on the document, and having invited an order from the trial court, it cannot retreat from the option exercised by it. He further contends that the document had since been admitted into evidence, as ex. A-1, by the trial court, though subject to payment of the deficit stamp duty, and it is impermissible for the petitioner to take it back, or to have recourse to the alternative method of getting the document impounded. He submits that the judgment of a Division bench of this Court in Chintalpudi annapurnamma s case (1 supra) prohibits such course of action.

( 5 ) TO the same effect are the submissions of Sri M. S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 10.

( 6 ) THE controversy in this CRP is about the procedure to be adopted, to get an insufficiently stamped document impounded so as to make it admissible in evidence. The act provides for levy of stamp duty on various transactions. Under the scheme of the Act, a document witnessing the corresponding transaction, assumes legality and acceptability, only when the prescribed stamp duty is paid thereon. Conversely, nonpayment of stamp duty or any deficiency, in that regard, would render the document, unacceptable in law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document