V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy district at Sarurnagar in O. S. Sr. No. 5112 of 1993 dated 2-7-1993, returning the plaint for payment of requisite deficit stamp duty on the suit agreement of sale dated 8-12-1992.

( 2 ) THE revision petition arises in the following circumstances. The revision petitioner-plaintiff is a Company. Its case is that the respondent herein entered into an agreement of sale on 8-12-1992 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 7. 40 cents for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and received part payment to an extent of rs. 14,80,000/- and possession was also delivered on 8-12-1992. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract. The office took the objection that the suit agreement of sale requires stamp duty as per Article 47-A of the Stamp Act in the same manner as a registered sale deed. The revision petitioner contested the above objection and contended that it is only an agreement and that it is not chargeable with duty as a sale deed. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge did not agree with the above contention and directed that the deficit stamp duty has to be paid and that the plaint cannot be looked into and it cannot be registered till then. Aggrieved by the above endorsement returning the plaint, this revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) NOTICE was ordered to the respondent and Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent.

( 4 ) SRI B. V. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, firstly contended that a plaint cannot be returned with the objection as to the stamp duty on a particular document and since the plaint is not yet registered, the allegations in the plaint alone will have to be looked into. He secondly contended that the stage for payment of deficit stamp duty will arise only at the stage of tendering the suit document in evidence and not at the inception. Reading Rule 1 of order 7 Civil Procedure Code, he contended that the plaint has to be registered if the requirements of Clauses (a) to (i) are fulfilled and that the objection as to the deficit stamp duty on the suit agreement is not contemplated by any of those clauses. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be given to the Lower Court to register the suit and to proceed with the matter. He also urged that interim direction of this Court dated 21-7-1993 for maintaining status quo may be continued during the pendency of the suit. On the otherhand, Sri M. K. Jaleel, advocate, representing Sri C. V. Mohan reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the basis of the suit is the so called agreement of sale dated 8-12-1992 and it requires stamp duty just as a sale deed and it cannot be looked into for any purpose unless the deficit Stamp duty is paid. He further contended that no rights flow from such an illegal contract of sale and hence interim order dated 21-7-1993 is fit to be vacated.

( 5 ) I carefully considered the contentions of both sides. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the plaint has been returned on the sole ground that the suit agreement of sale dated 8-12-1992 requires stamp duty and unless the deficit stamp duty is paid, it cannot be looked into for any purpose and likewise plaint also cannot be looked into till deficit stamp duty is paid. It is well settled that the question of payment of deficit stamp duty on any document will arise only at the stage of evidence and that too when the document is sought to be tendered in evidence. It is another thing that the office may at any stage examine the documents filed by the parties and necessary steps may be initiated to put the parties to notice that a particular document is not sufficiently stamped or that it requires stamp duty and penalty etc. , but the stage for collecting the deficit stamp duty will definitely arise only when the document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document