M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 28.03.2011 in I.A.No.451 of 2009 in O.S.No.17 of 2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sri kalahasti, levying stamp duty and penalty on the suit document i.e., sale letter dated 24.06.2004.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the petition for convenience.

3. The respondents filed I.A.No.451 of 2009 to reject the unregistered and unstamped sale letter dated 24.06.2004 as it is hit by provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'Stamp Act') and Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Registration Act), while raising several other contentions. It is specifically contended that during trial, the document i.e., sale letter was marked as Ex.A3, but the same cannot be marked as it is unregistered and unstamped, conveying immovable property evidencing delivery of possession for value of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the same is liable to be rejected.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed counter denying the material allegations, while admitting that the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, inter alia contended that the question of rejection of the document on the ground of nonregistration would not arise. That apart, the document once admitted cannot be rejected since the document was marked without raising any objection during evidence. Therefore, question of rejection of Ex.A3 does not arise at this stage in view of the bar under Section 36 of Stamp Act. It is also contended that the document under challenge would not create any interest or confer title in any immovable property, thereby the document is not required to be stamped, liable for levy of stamp duty and penalty and therefore, the document cannot be rejected and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The trial Court, upon hearing argument of both the counsel, while concluding that there are no grounds to reject the document, ordered the office to levy stamp duty and penalty keeping the document in safe custody.

6. Aggrieved by the order under challenge, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner against respondents 1 to 4 initially. During pendency of the revision, the first respondent died leaving behind, respondents 2 to 5 and the proposed respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record vide orders dated 02.03.2012 in CRP MP No.830 of 2012.

7. The main grounds raised before this Court in the revision, in brief, are that the document once marked cannot be rejected on the ground of inadmissibility for want of stamp duty and registration, more particularly, when no objection was raised at the time of marking the document as Ex.A3 though it was marked in the presence of the counsel. When once the document was admitted, it cannot be rejected in view of the bar under Section 36 of Stamp Act and stamp duty and penalty cannot be levied, but the trial Court, on erroneous appreciation of law, passed the impugned order.

8. During hearing, learned counsel for revision petitioner Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, reiterated the bar to exercise power under Section 36 of Stamp Act to levy stamp duty and penalty or to reject the document on the ground of its inadmissibility for want of stamp duty while contending that the suit itself was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale-Ex.A3 and thereby non levy of stamp duty and penalty is not a ground to reject the document and the Court on its own motion cannot levy stamp duty and penalty and prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial Court by allowing the revision petition.

9. Whereas learned counsel for respondents Sri T. Janardhana Rao, while supporting the order in all respects has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 33 of Stamp Act and to contend that it is the duty of the Court to levy stamp duty and penalty when the document is produced before the Court for admitting in evidence and that too, the provisions of Stamp Act hav