ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)

This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 10.01.2020, in I.A.No.576 of 2019 in O.S.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, filed under order XIII, rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C to reject Ex.A8 for non-payment of sufficient stamp duty and penalty which is inadmissible in evidence.

2. Heard Mr.Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The defendants 7 to 9 in the trial court have filed the application to reject the Ex.A8 for non-payment of sufficient stamp duty and penalty, which is inadmissible in evidence. Further it is contended that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction. She filed Chief Affidavit as PW1 and marked document dated 10.01.1976 as Ex.A8 on the assumption that the office of the court collected stamp duty penalty properly and in fact the alleged collection of stamp duty and its assessment is not property because the document relates to permanent sale agreement for value Rs.1,500/- and possession was delivered and hence it should have been treated and stamp should have been followed and Ex.A8 has been marked as if stamp duty is properly charged and collected by the office and in fact Ex.A8 was shown as sale deed in the deposition and marked. The said objection regarding admissibility of document may be considered at any stage of the matter even though it is marked as exhibit, when such marking is given inadvertently. Ex.A8 is insufficiently stamped and the sale deed is liable to be impounded for stamp duty and penalty as they are not registered and liable to be rejected and to be eschewed from the evidence.

4. The 2nd respondent/plaintiff filed counter in the trial court and contended that stamp duty already collected by the court and document is marked without any objection. Once the document is marked, question of rejecting the same at this stage does not arise. Therefore there is no necessity for payment of stamp duty on the document. The application is filed only to drag the matter and same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Considering the submissions of both the counsel allowed the application. Assailing the same, the present C.R.P came to be filed.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the petition, whereas learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the decision in " Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra " (MANU/SC/8502/2008) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed Section 35 of the STAMP ACT in the case of "T.Bhaskar Rao Vs. T.Gabriel and Others" (MANU/AP/0081/1981 : AIR 1981 AP 175) wherein it was held as follows:

"5. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as to make it admissible in evidence. Provisio A to Section 35 of the Stamp Act enables a document to be received in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the document is chargeable, but not stamped or on payment of deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows that if the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are satisfied, then the document which is chargeable with duty, but not stamped, can be received in evidence.

It was further held:

7. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the STAMP ACT , if not stamped, as