( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition, by the plaintiff, is directed against the order, dated 20-10-2003, passed by the Junior Civil judge, Pattikonda, Kurnool District, in C. F. R. No. 2428 of 2003, in an un-numbered original suit, insisting for payment of stamp duty and penalty on the suit document, which is an agreement of sale, for registering the plaint, at the time of registration of the plaint as a suit.

( 2 ) THE facts, as could be seen from the impugned order, are that the petitioner herein had instituted the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondent herein on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 17-6-1992. Office of the Court below took an objection as to the maintainability of the suit stating that the suit document i. e. , agreement of sale dated 17-6-1992, is a sale deed in the eye of law and not an agreement of sale simpliciter inasmuch as the recitals in the agreement of sale show that the property was delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff along with the agreement and hence the suit cannot be numbered unless the required stamp duty and penalty on the said basic document is paid.

( 3 ) THE Court below heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and ultimately directed the Office of the court below to calculate the stamp duty and penalty payable by the petitioner on the suit document dated 17-6-1992 and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the suit document within fifteen days from the date of the impugned order making it clear that in case the petitioner fails to pay the stamp duty and penalty within the aforesaid period, the plaint shall stand rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C. P. C.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the court below, plaintiff preferred this civil revision petition.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order as well as the other material papers on record.

( 6 ) THE Court below, for arriving at the conclusion, as noted in the impugned order, adverted to the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in T. Gurappa v. Naidu ramana Reddy#1, and also the decision of another learned single Judge of this Court in chorumala Kamala v. Samanthapudi Indira#2. Though the Court below observed that the aforesaid two decisions support the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, the said two decisions cannot be relied upon in view of the Division bench decision of this Court in 6. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma#3. So observing, and relying upon the Division Bench decision of this court in B. Ratnamala scase, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner/ plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty on the suit document, as stated supra.

( 7 ) AT the outset, it must be observed that the decisions of this Court T. Gurappa scase (1 supra) and Chorumala Kamala s case (2 supra) are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in those are totally different from that of the facts and circumstances in the case on hand.

( 8 ) EVEN though the Court below observed that the aforesaid two decisions of this Court support the version of the petitioner/plaintiff, it relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma and eventually held that the suit document contains recital of delivery of possession of the property and, therefore, Explanation-1 to article 47 (1) (a) (sic. 47-A) of Schedule 1 -A of the Indian Stamp Act will come into play and the suit document shall have to be treated as a sale deed for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and penalty.

( 9 ) IN T. Gurapa v. Naidu Ramana Reddy (1 supra), the facts are that the plaintiff therein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale which was marked as ex. A-1. The defendant therein raised an objection that the document Ex. A-1 was not an agreement of sale, but it was an outright sale deed in and by the terms