The court ruled that a development agreement for agricultural land falls under Article 6 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, requiring payment of deficit stamp duty for admissibility, and that the order is interlocutory, not subject to revision under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. A. V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/1st defendant in COS No. 10 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short ‘Special Judge’), challenging the Order dated 20.03.2024 in I.A. No. 356 of 2023 in I.A. No. 937 of 2018 in COS No. 10 of 2018.

3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are the plaintiffs No. 1 & 2, and the respondents No. 3 to 5 are the defendants No. 2 to 4 respectively in the COS No. 10 of 2018.

I. Facts:

4. The above commercial suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 for specific performance of the Development Agreement dated 31.01.2023 or alternatively for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,36,372/- together with subsequent interest and also for other reliefs.

5. Respondents No. 1 & 2 also filed I.A. No. 937 of 2018 for injunction thereby restraining the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 from alienating the suit property and also for other reliefs. Vide docket order dated 04.07.2018 in I.A. No. 937 of 2018, the development agreement was marked as Ex.P1.

6. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 356 of 2023 under Order XIII Rules 3 and 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) with the prayer to de-exhibit/reject Ex.P1 for non-payment of proper stamp duty thereon. He inter alia submitted in the affidavit that, the marking of Exs.P1 to P10 and Exs.R1 to R9 was tentative for identification in the injunction petition and could not be construed as documents on record in the suit. With respect to Ex.P1, he further stated that it was a development agreement, engrossed on stamp paper of Rs.50/-. The same was required to be stamped as per Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act. The said objection was not taken at the time of marking of the documents, by mistake, that the marking was only tentative in the injunction petition, though the plaintiffs/respondents had no right to plead their case based on Ex.P1, even in the injunction petition, without payment of stamp duty, which was mandatory. In those circumstances, the petitioner requested that the document Ex.P1 be de-exhibited, as the same was not proved as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.

7. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter and contested the petition. They inter alia raised the objection that I.A. No. 356 of 2023 under Order XIII Rules 3 & 4 CPC was not maintainable. The suit was filed for specific performance of the development agreement dated 31.01.2013 or alternatively, for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,71,36,372/- together with subsequent interest and for other reliefs. They denied that Ex.P1 was required to be stamped, as per Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act. They contended that the said provision dealt with construction of a house or building including a multi unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of multistoried building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. They contended that the agreement was for development of land into lay out. As such, Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act had no application. They also raised the plea that the law does not permit for deexhibiting document once exhibited. The admissibility of the document could be decided in trial.

8. The respondents No. 3 to 5 did not file any counter to I.A. No. 356 of 2023. II. Order of the learned Special Judge:

9. The learned Special Judge, by the impugned Order dated 20.03.2024 partly allowed the I.A. No. 356 of 2023, subject to the observations, as made in Para-17 of the Order, which reads as under:

“17. In the result, it is held that; a. the document does not fall under Article 6 (B) and it falls under Article 6 (C); b. since the document bears the s