The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to carefully consider the distinct nature of transactions, the stamp duty requirements for each, and the specification of the collateral transaction before admitting certain documents in evidence.

ORDER :

1. C.R.P.No. 2807 of 2022, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 17.11.2022, dismissing I.A.No. 787 of 2022 in O.S.No. 197 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, filed under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff to de-exhibit the document, dated 15.04.1997, which was inadvertently marked as exhibit B1 on 06.12.2018.

2. C.R.P.No. 1059 of 2022 is preferred against the order, dated 04.04.2022, dismissing I.A.No. 2326 of 2017 in O.S.No. 105 of 2009 on the file of the same Court, filed by the 1st defendant under Section 151 CPC to reject and ignore the document, dated 15.04.1997, for wrongful impounding of the same in violation of the directions and orders of the High Court.

3. Since these two revisions are connected and the parties being one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Y.V Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in C.R.P.No. 2807 of 2022.

5. The facts which are necessary for disposal of these revisions, briefly stated, are as under:

The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 197 of 2009 for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant in the said suit filed another suit in O.S.No. 105 of 2009 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 15.04.1997, coupled with an endorsement thereon, dated 20.08.1997. Both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence is being recorded in O.S.No. 197 of 2009. When the evidence of the defendant in O.S.No. 197 of 2009 was being recorded in chief examination on 06.12.2018, an objection was raised by the plaintiff with regard to document, dated 15.04.1997, on the ground of deficit stamp duty. As on 06.12.2018, the matter regarding deficit stamp duty on the document, dated 15.04.1997, was pending before the Supreme Court and it was brought to the notice of the trial Court. Later, on 22.01.2019, the Supreme Court passed the following order:

“One question of law raised in the special leave petitions is that whether second review of the review petition is maintainable or not. Since the document in question was already impounded on 23.02.2012 a day prior to the passing of the order in C.R.P.No. 730 of 2012, we are not inclined to go into the question of law raised by the petitioner as to the maintainability of the second review petition. The question of law raised by the petitioner is left open.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all contentious points at the time of trial including the validity of the impounding of the documents.

The Trial Court shall afford sufficient opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.”

6. The defendant in O.S.No. 197 of 2009 filed I.A.No. 2159 of 2009 to impound the unregistered dhakhal deed dated 15.04.1997. As per orders, dated 15.03.2012, the trial Court directed the Bench Clerk to call for an explanation from the District Registrar, Eluru, as to how the document was impounded and stamp fee was collected even before furnishing the opinion by the Court sought by the District Registrar, vide letter, dated 02.02.2012, regarding the door number of the property, plinth area of the building. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 2326 of 2017 to reject the unregistered dhakhal deed, dated 15.04.1997, alleging that it was wrongfully impounded and also to hear on the admissibility of the said document which is mentioned in the list of documents proposed to be marked through DW1. The petition was dismissed on 04.04.2022 stating that the unregistered dhakhal deed, dated 15.04.1997, was already impounded, and therefore, question of rejection of the document does not arise a