1. The revision involves the questions as to whether a copy of an unstamped document can be called as instrument under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act and if not is it not an inadmissible document for not to exhibit, unless original is produced to cause impound and that too when the original document is undisputedly available in another proceeding that was marked with no objection for stamp duty therein for collateral purpose, (apart from what is meant by collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act from its wording), from not a registered lease deed, still is it not a bar to exhibit in the present proceedings in view of the specific wording of Section 35 of the Stamp Act confining to same proceedings of waiver of objection by not extending to any other proceeding even between same parties and any earlier expression by not considering properly said provision is still a binding precedent and if not it still requires any reference to a Division Bench in this regard.

2. The revision is filed impugning the docket order passed by the lower Court in the suit pending trial during course of PW1’s evidence on dated 19.12.2014, refusing permission to exhibit as secondary evidence the certified copy obtained from a Court proceeding in another suit, where the so called lease deed unregistered and not duly stamped was already exhibited without objection on stamp duty between parties interse for collateral purpose, when copy sought to exhibit the same in the present suit.

3. The facts in nutshell for purpose of answering the revision lis are: Plaintiff-B. Jagadeeshwar Rao in O.S.No.453 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, maintained against the defendant-lessee, Sri Ravi Enterprises-Proprietor, K. Guru Murthy, the suit for recovery of money towards rentals due.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-revision petitioner assailed the order saying once the original lease unregistered and even not-duly stamped document is exhibited for collateral purpose between parties interse in another proceeding without objection on stamp duty, the certified copy obtained from that court is admissible when original undisputedly lying in that another suit and refusal to exhibit the same is unsustainable and said docket order is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision and in support of the submission the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly placed reliance on a single judge expression of this court in Lakkaraju Radha Krishna Vs. Pyarle Sri Rama Sarma and Others (2007 (1) ALD 67 = 2007 (1) ALT 460).

5. Whereas it is the submission of the Counsel for the revision respondent-defendant that the order of the lower court holds good and for this court while sitting in revision, within its limited scope, there is nothing to interfere and the expression in Lakkaraju Radha Krishna supra is hit by the principle of perincuriam and not binding for same was rendered in ignorance of the wording of Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

6. Heard both sides at length including from the expression in Lakkaraju Radha Krishna supra among several expressions placed reliance in support of the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

7. Before coming to any further facts if at all for answering the revision lis, it is necessary to consider the scope of law from the relevant provisions and propositions.

8. The Indian Stamp Act is a fiscal legislation with an object to protect revenue & to collect revenue (tax) in the shape of stamps on transactions covered by the instruments. It is in fact to exclude proof of any transaction by an instrument not duly stamped till Stamp duty is levied & paid in order to protect the revenue-as held in Hameed Vs. Abdul (2001(7) SCC 573). The Privy Council in Ram Rattan Vs. Parma Nand (AIR 1946 PC 51), held way back in 1946 that the words ‘for any purpose’ used in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose and