( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant. The suit is filed for specific performance.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 35 of 1999 on the file of the District Judge, nellore, for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11-2-1999, executed by the defendant, who is no other than the brother of the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiff and also to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

( 4 ) THE suit was filed in November 1999. The defendant filed his Written statement and in Para-19 of the Written Statement it is stated that the agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 is not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp.

( 5 ) THE Court below framed the issues on 19-1-2000 wherein the relevant issues are issue Nos. 1 and 3. Issue No. 1 is, "whether the alleged agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 is true, valid and binding on the defendant" and issue No. 3 is,"whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999".

( 6 ) THE suit came up for trial and inconsonance with Order-18 Rule-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff as P. W. 1 filed his Sworn Affidavit as his chief-Examination and the affidavits of other witnesses on his behalf were also filed in June 2003. Along with the affidavit, the plaintiff filed the list of documents, which were marked as Exs. A1 to A22. The agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 and the endorsement thereon as regards payment of a sum of rs. 10,00,000/- received by the defendant on 26-4-1999 are marked as Exs. A1 and a2. Ex. A1 agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 was produced along with the plaint on 9-11-1999, which was admitted by P. W. 1 in his chief- examination by way of the sworn affidavit and the endorsement thereon are marked as Exs. A1 and A2 and the District Judge, Nellore, put his initial on 15-7-2003 on the said documents seal.

( 7 ) THE defendant filed an affidavit dated 14-7-2003 along with the petition under Order-18 Rule-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was received by the plaintiff s Advocate on 15-7-2003 at 11. 30 A. M. , with an endorsement for counter . The said petition was filed by the defendant to declare that the documents marked as Exs. A1 and A2 in the chief examination of P. W. 1 are not admissible in evidence. The original agreement of sale dated 11-2-1999 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is Ex. A1 and the endorsement of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, alleged to have been received by the defendant on 26-4-1999 and the said acknowledgement by him in Ex. A1 agreement of sale is Ex. A2.

( 8 ) THE petition filed by the defendant on 15-7-2003 was returned on 17-7-2003 with the following endorsement: state, how this petition is maintainable at this stage as already concerned documents are marked, to be stated. Time (7) days .

( 9 ) FURTHER, on 19-7-2003, the said petition was represented stating that"stamp duty and penalty can be levied on the documents at any stage of the suit. As per the decision reported in 1999 (6) ALT. , page 59, the agreement of sale, whereunder possession of the property was already delivered, is liable for payment of stamp duty and penalty. Thus, Exs. A1 and A2 are liable for payment of stamp duty and penalty. The xerox copies of the above decision is herewith enclosed for ready reference. Hence, this petition is maintainable".

( 10 ) ON 23-7-2003, the said petition was submitted for orders, putting a note by the office to the effect that "this office took an objection regarding the stamp duty and penalty on Exs. A1 and A2. Decision is enclosed herewith". On the said office submission, the Court made an endorsement to the following effect:"issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to pay stamp duty and penalty towards Ex. A