The Civil Revision Petition is coming up for admission.

2. Sri K.Sitaram, the learned counsel representing the respondent having lodged the caveat on behalf of the respondent, having made certain submissions, further made a request for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition itself at the stage of admission. Sri Dilipkumar Shiradkar, the learned counsel representing the petitioner also made submissions touching the merits and demerits of the Civil Revision Petition and further made a request for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition itself. Hence, at the stage of admission, the Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of finally.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by an order dated 22.6.2009 made in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni.

4. Sri Dilipkumar Shiradkar, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the present revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.52 of 2007 as aforesaid, under Section 17 of the Registration Act r/w Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘ the Code’ for the purpose of convenience ) to impose stamp duty and penalty on the alleged agreement of sale dated 3.2.2007. The learned counsel also would maintain that though in the relief portion, the relief relating to the imposition of stamp duty and penalty alone has been prayed for, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the objection relating to the non-registration also had been taken. The counsel also would point out that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni had not discussed anything relating to the aspect of registration. The counsel also would further maintain that the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition filed the suit for specific performance on the strength of the alleged agreement of sale dated 3.2.2007 against the petitioner/defendant in the suit. The petitioner filed a detailed written statement opposing the same. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.231 of 2009 and also stand taken in the counter. The learned counsel would maintain that the mere fact that the document already had been marked as Ex.A.1 may not seriously alter the situation and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni should have allowed the said application filed by the petitioner instead of dismissing the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition to be allowed. The counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. Per contra, Sri K.Sita Ram, the learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff would maintain that when once the document had been marked as Ex.A.1, the question of raising objection would not arise. Especially, in the light of the language of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience), the counsel also would maintain that even otherwise this being a suit for specific performance, in the light of Section 49(c ) proviso of the Act, the other objection relating to non-registration cannot be said to be a serious one. Even otherwise, such objection had not been specified in the relief portion of the application and hence in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard the counsel.

7. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner-defendant in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The said application was filed under Section 17 of the Registration Act r/w Section 151 of ‘the Code’ to impose stamp duty and penalty on the alleged agreement of sale dated 3.