The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents for collateral purpose, the application of the provisions of the Stamp Act, and the duty of the court to impound and collect deficit stamp duty and penalty.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 12.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.934 of 2019 in O.S.No.208 of 2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 2014 filed for permanent injunction.

3. The respondent filed I.A.No.934 of 2019 under Order-13, Rules 3 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject Ex.B2 sale letter on the ground that the said document being a sale letter coupled with delivery of possession is a compulsorily registerable document and as the said document is insufficiently stamped and was not registered, the same is hit by Article 47-A of Act 17 of 1986 and hence liable to be rejected. The respondent resisted the petition contending that the since the suit is for permanent injunction, the document can be marked for collateral purpose.

4. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by both the learned counsel, the trial Court allowed the petition rejecting Ex.B2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that, when once the document was admitted into evidence, such an admission cannot be called in question in view of the bar contained under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, except under Section 61 of the Stamp Act. However, the trial Court instead of invoking the provisions of Section 61 of the Stamp Act, in utter misconception of the scheme of Section 61 of the Stamp Act, rejected and de-exhibited the document. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the document is inadmissible for insufficiency of stamp duty, but the same can be used for the purpose of establishing possession over the schedule property. Further, the trial Court failed to take into consideration of the factum that the suit is filed for permanent injunction and hence the subject document can be used for collateral purpose. The decision relied on by the trial Court for rejecting the document is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the nature of the suits differs. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

7. On the other hand, Smt. S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that, the document being unregistered besides being insufficiently stamped cannot at all be admitted in evidence, even though admitted, Order 13 Rule 3 CPC empowers the Court to reject the document which it considers irrelevant and inadmissible at any stage of the suit and mere admittance of the document in evidence cannot become an impediment for the Court to reject the document. The trial Court had scanned the material on record and the law applicable to the facts of the case in right perspective and rightly rejected the document. The orders impugned do not suffer from either irregularity or irrationality and no valid grounds are either urged or raised in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court. In support of his contention that an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose, the learned counsel relied on the decision in Vangala Ravinder Reddy vs. U.Venkatamma, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 2225. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits.

8. The material placed on record would indicate that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction. The respondent got himself examined as P.W.1 in the said suit. During the course of cross-examination, when he was confronted with a sale letter dated 03.06.1997, he identified the same and consequently the said sale letter was marked as Ex.B1, however subject to objection as the same was not registered. Subsequently, the responde