Marking of a document is only for convenient reference whereas admitting of a document is taking document as evidence after applying judicial mind.

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

I.V.R.C.L. Assets & Holdings Limited filed this Writ Petition questioning the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for issue of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order impugned, passed in I.A.No. 1687 of 2013 in C.C.No. 95 of 2012 dated 06-08-2013 as illegal, improper, unjust and set aside the same as it is beyond the scope of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act of 1986') and contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court in S.M.S. Tea Estates Vs. Messrs Chandmari Tea Estates Private Limited (2011) 14 SCC 66) and to direct the 1st respondent not to look into the contents of unregistered GPA-cum-JDA dated 24-03-2007 alleging that the order passed by the 1st respondent is against the law laid down by the Apex Court.

2. The 2nd respondent is the owner of plot No. 33, part of plot Nos. 29(p), 34(p) and 30(p), admeasuring 100 square yards in survey No. 77, Cyber Enclave, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, and the 2nd respondent is a member of Cyber Enclave Welfare Association. The 2nd respondent, along with neighbouring plot owners of the association, approached the petitioner for amalgamation of their individual plots with neighbouring plots to make it a big plot of land enabling the petitioner company to take up a profitable commercial and residential buildings/towers and entered into an unregistered GPA-cum-JDA with the petitioner on different dates. The members of the Cyber Enclave Welfare Association assured the petitioner company that all the plot owners have agreed and accepted for amalgamation of their plots for common development with a specific intention of getting additional built up area for common benefit of all the plot owners, thereby entered into GPA-cum-JDA with the petitioner company. The 2nd respondent also entered into an unregistered GPA-cum-JDA dated 24-03-2007 for the development of land within a period of 3 years with a grace period of 6 months but development could not be completed within the specified time due to various reasons and impediments, more particularly due to non-cooperation of adjacent land owners in entering into GPA-cum-JDA in time, submitting relevant papers to get U.L.C. clearance which is mandatory and pre-requisite to file papers, file consolidated building applications for obtaining permission from municipal authorities.

The project could not be commenced in time as agreed under GPA-cum-JDA. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed C.C.No. 95 of 2012 before the 1st respondent mainly in the nature of specific performance of contract and for recovery of arrears of assured monthly rent, for payment of future rent and for delivery of possession of commercial-cum-residential built up area together with compensation and costs invoking Clause 3.3 of the unregistered and not duly GPA-cum-JDA dated 24-03-2007.

3. When an opportunity is provided to the Writ Petitioner, it took a preliminary objection that the unregistered and not duly GPA-cum-JDA is inadmissible in evidence and basing on such document, no relief can be granted, with a request not to receive or mark such unregistered and unduly stamped GPA-cum-JDA on record but the 1st respondent, without considering the preliminary objection, allowed the 2nd respondent to mark the document as exhibit. It is contended that the document GPA-cum-JDA received in I.A.No. 1087 of 2013 in C.C.No. 95 of 2012 by the 1st respondent is unregistered document involving transfer of rights in immovable property from one party to another and it is compulsorily registerable document under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act of 1908') and even as per the judgment of Apex Court in S.M.S. Tea Estates (1st supra) but the 1st respondent, without considering the objection, marked the same as exhibit on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The Writ Petitioner mainly contended that in view of bar under Section 17(1)(b) r