Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. She filed O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,92,000/- from the defendant. The suit was filed on the basis of a hand letter executed on 14.02.2011. The evidence of the parties was completed. During the course of evidence of PW.1, the said hand letter was marked as Ex.A1 and was treated as an agreement under Article 6(A) of Schedule I(A) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the Act). PW.1 was cross-examined. When the case was posted for arguments on defendants side, the defendant filed I.A.No.490 of 2016 stating that the said document is not an agreement but it is a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)(b) of the Act as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in B. Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, 1996(1) ALT 917 (FB) and it is liable to be stamped under Article 13 of Schedule I(A) of the Act and not under Article 6(A)(iv) of Schedule I(A) of the Act. It was stated that it happened by inadvertence. Though the said document was marked as exhibit, it does not amount to admission and he has got a right to challenge the admissibility of the said document. Accordingly, he sought to de-exhibit the said document.

3. A counter was filed stating that the said application was filed only to drag on the matter. It is further stated that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1100/- towards stamp duty and penalty on the above said hand letter at the time of filing of the suit on 25.03.2014 and the same was endorsed on the back side of the hand letter.

4. On the above averments, the trial Court framed the following points for determination:

1. What is the nature of the document marked under Ex.A1?

2. Whether the document marked as Ex.A1 can be de-exhibited, if so to what result?

5. The trial Court, by its order dated 17.02.2017, held that the plaintiff has to pay the stamp duty and penalty and, accordingly, allowed the application in part directing the plaintiff to pay the remaining stamp duty and penalty under Article 13 of Schedule IA of the Act after deducting the stamp duty already paid under Article 6A(iv) of Schedule I(A) of the Act with the following observations:

“11. In the instant case on hand, for better appreciation, this Court reiterating the recitals of Ex.A1 as it is:

MAHARAJASRI A.P LALY, W/O BUSHAN GAARIKI MARKAPUR GRAMAMU GURRAM RAMA RAO, S/O SUBBAIAH GAARU WRAASI/WRAINCHI ICHINA CHEUTTARAM LOGA TEECHAVALASINA BAAKI VUNDAGA, E DINAMU NAA AVASARA/VYAPARA NIMITTAMU NEETAHAVUNA NEENU APPUGA TEESUKUNNA ROKKAM RS.11,00,000/- LU AKSHARALA ELEVEN LAKHS ONLY ECCHINARU GAANA MUTTINADI. INDUKU VADDI NELA 1 KI 100KI RS.2-00 PRAKARAM SAALUSARI COMPOUND VADDITO MEEKU EVVAGALAVAADANU. INDUKU AYYE PENALTY KARCHULU NEENE BARINCHAGALAVADANU RS.11,00,000/- G. RAMA RAO

12. In the instant case on hand, the document in question would show that it consists of two parts and is not attested. The first part reads as follows E DINAMU NAA AVASARA/VYAPARA NIMITTAMU NEETAHAVUNA NEENU APPUGA TEESUKUNNA ROKKAM RS.11,00,000/- LU AKSHARALA ELEVEN LAKHS ONLY ECCHINARU GAANA MUTTINADI. The second part reads as follows INDUKU VADDI NELA 1 KI 100KI RS.2-00 PRAKARAM SAALUSARI COMPOUND VADDITO MEEKU EVVAGALAVAADANU. INDUKU AYYE PENALTY KARCHULU NEENE BARINCHAGALAVADANU.

13. The maker of document has obliged himself to pay money with interest to the person named at the top of document. As per the decision referred supra, it is therefore, to be seen the document marked as Ex.A1 can be said to be a bond. Now it has to be decided what is the stamp duty and penalty collected for a bond. During the course of evidence of PW.1 the said document i.e., Ex.A1 was treated as an agreement under Art.6(A) of Schedule I(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and marked as Ex.A1. In fact the said document marked as Ex.A1 is a bond within the meaning of Sec.2(5) of the Indian Stamp A