The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of memo in O.S.No.350 of 2010, dated 06.07.2012, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he filed the suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration and for permanent injunction in O.S.No.350 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. A written statement has been filed denying the allegations set out in the plaint and the respondent/defendant has stating that there is no registered document filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and he denied the oral purchase of the document since the suit schedule of property is Natham Poramboke.

3. While pendency of the above suit, this petitioner/plaintiff has filed a memo before the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam. In the memo, the petitioner/plaintiff states that he filed the suit for declaration and for injunction on the basis of the oral purchase of the suit property from one Govindasamy Gounder S/o Sukuran Gounder. The petitioner/plaintiff also states that oral purchase was followed by delivery of possession of the suit property purchased from the vendor by the petitioner/plaintiff and hence, there is an absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of property.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff pleaded that the suit property is a Natham Poramboke and Natham Poramboke was surveyed during the year 1993 and persons who were in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property were granted with patta under the Natham Nilavari Thittam Scheme. Since the petitioner/plaintiff was delivered with the possession of the suit property in the year 1993 by the concerned vendor viz., Govindasamy Gounder was sanctioned with patta by the Revenue Authorities after ascertaining the actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that though it is oral purchase, but the vendor Govindasamy Gounder has issued a sale receipt, which is not a registered document and therefore, he prayed the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, to send for the sale receipt dated 07.04.1997 for calculating the valuation of the stamp duty and penalty.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff also states that for proving the nature of possession as a collateral purpose, since the petitioner/plaintiff for proving the nature of possession, he prayed the learned District Munsif Court to receive the document for collateral purpose. In the said circumstances, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a memo undated seeking direction of the learned District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, to impound the document dated 07.04.1997 and to send the same for calculating the stamp duty and penalty.

7. On receipt of the notice in the above memo, the respondent/defendant filed an objection dated 19.04.2012, for the accepting the memo filed by the petitioner. The respondents/defendants state that there is no recital in the document dated 07.04.1997 about the sale receipt and the document dated 07.04.1997 was styled as sale deed and not as sale receipt. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff stated that the plaintiff orally purchased the suit property dated 07.04.1997 is false one and it was found for the suit purpose.

8. The respondent/defendant has strongly objecting the document dated 07.04.1997 and send for calculating the stamp duty and penalty since the document should be compulsorily registered and stamped according to law. Therefore, it cannot be cured by way of levy of stamp duty and penalty.

9. It is the further case of the respondents/defendants that though the respondents/defendants filed their written statement dated 15.06.2011 and the suit was posted in the list on 09.0.2012, but noting very well that the petitioner/plaintiff cannot succeed the case, all in sudden the present memo has been filed just to protract the proceedings. The respondents/ defendants