ORDER :

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 27.02.2020, dismissing I.A.No.693 of 2017 in O.S.No.322 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, filed under Section 151 CPC to impound the suit agreement of sale as it is liable for stamp duty and penalty or else to eschew the document from evidence.

2. Heard Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 and Sri V. Nitesh, learned 1st 2nd counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/ defendant No.4 is shown to be not a necessary party to this revision, as she was set ex-parte before the trial Court.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit agreement of sale is created in order to knock away the property of the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit agreement of sale is liable to be impounded as it is not admissible in evidence. However, the plaintiff marked the said document as one of the exhibits. As per law, the document is liable to be impounded under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act as there is a reference regarding possession of the property in the said document. It is therefore just and necessary to impound the suit agreement of sale as it is insufficiently stamped, and in case, the plaintiff is unable to impound the suit agreement of sale, the same may be eschewed as an exhibit.

(b) The plaintiff filed counter denying the petition averments. It is further contended in the counter that since long time, the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property and therefore, Section 47A of the Stamp Act is not attracted. The document is admissible in evidence and the same does not require impounding. There are no merits and bona fides in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. On merits, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the document once marked cannot be de-exhibited.

5. The aggrieved defendants preferred this revision contending that when an objection is raised for marking the document, the court has to decide the objection. As per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document, agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession is liable for impounding and without impounding, it cannot be marked.

6. The main grievance of the revision petitioners is that in spite of an objection recorded in writing that the document is inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp duty, as required under Article 47-A of the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘the Act’), since the tenant who is in possession of the property allegedly entered into an agreement of sale, the trial Court overlooking the same, marked the document, and therefore, the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction cast on it under Sections 33 & 35 of the Act and thus, merely because the document is given a number, the same is not a bar to demark the document and that Section 36 of the Act has application only when the document is received in evidence and not just when the document is merely marked.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (For the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) in A.P. Laly v. Gurram Rama Rao, 2017 (5) ALT 753, wherein the question decided is whether it is open to a party who raised the objection or not with regard to admissibility of document to file a petition for de-exhibiting the said document at a later stage either in the same proceeding or at an appellate stage. It is held that court has right to de-exhibit a document, at paragraph No.30 as follows :

“30. Thus, in the absence of consideration of application of Rule 3 of Order 13 to the cases of improperly admitted documents, the arguments advanced on the basis of such decisions is of no avail. I am of the opinio