IMPORTANT POINT
Aggrieved party in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act may lead evidence in appeal against the order passed by the Collector in such proceedings.

The petitioner presented a sale deed dated 10-07-87, for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Stamp duty of Rs.2,60,00,200/- and registration fee of Rs.10,50,250/- was paid by taking the value of the property at Rs. 21 cores. The sub Registrar took the view that the market value of the property is Rs. 95,86,01,000/- and on that basis, came to the conclusion that the stamp duty and registration fee would be Rs.12,25,32,860/-, and Rs.47,93,255/- respectively. When the petitioner did not pay the differential amount, the registration of the document was kept pending, and the matter was referred to the Collector, the respondent herein, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short “the Act”).

2. Through order dated 25-07-2007, the respondent decided that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,23,60, 935/- towards deficit stamp duty and registration charges. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 13 of 2007 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Court’)

3. The petitioner intended to adduce evidence before the Court. Accordingly, it filed an affidavit dated 07-07-2008, in lieu of chief-examination. The Court passed a detailed order dated 18-08-2008, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to adduce evidence, for the first time in the appeal. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

4. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an appeal under Section 47-A of the Act before a Civil Court virtually partakes the character of original proceedings, inasmuch as the determination earlier thereto, was not by a judicial authority. He contends that, while acting under Section 47-A, the respondent is indeed a party to the entire dispute, and the adjudication, in its true sense, takes place only in an appeal filed before the Civil Court. Learned counsel submits that the Court was not justified in assuming to itself, a situation, contemplated under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C., to itself, when the petitioner intended to adduce evidence.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the other hand, submits that an appeal under Section 47-A of the Act is comparable to the one, under Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C., and evidence cannot be adduced for the first time in an appeal of this nature, except by complying with the provisions of Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. He contends that no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

6. A serious dispute existed, as to the market value of the property, i.e., the subject-matter of sale deed dated 10-07-1997, presented by the petitioner for registration. As provided for under the Act. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the respondent under Section 47-A of the Act. The respondent upheld the market value assessed by the Sub-Registrar, may be with slight modification. Naturally, the petitioner felt aggrieved, and availed the remedy of appeal, under Section 47-A of the Act.

7. A perusal of the order dated 25-07-2007 passed by the respondent discloses that no evidence is recorded; much less any discussion was undertaken, on the basis of the contentions before it. It was almost ex parte in nature. The amount involved is phenomenal.

8. The petitioner wanted to adduce evidence, may be at the stage of appeal, and accordingly filed an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination. Its effort appears to be, to place before the Court, certain material, which had bearing upon the market value of the property, at the relevant point of time. The Court, however, refused to permit the petitioner to adduce the evidence, only on the ground that the case before it is an appeal. An observation was made by the Court, to the effect that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the respondent, and it is not entitled to adduce evidence for the first time before it. Reference was made to certain precedents, which deal with the parameters of Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C.

9. The Court was