ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit in OS No. 121 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7.5.2002 followed by supplementary agreement dated 17.4.2003. The agreement of sale was marked as Ex. A1 and the supplementary agreement was marked as Ex. A3 during the course of evidence of PW1, who is the 1st plaintiff. On the ground that Exs. A1 and A3 are not properly stamped and registered, the defendants in the suit filed LA No. 64 of 2015 in OS No. 121 of 2009 for expelling the said documents from marking. The Trial Court by order and decree dated 18.4.2019, dismissed the said interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th defendant in the suit, filed the present revision.

2. From the material on record and from the impugned order it could be seen that Ex. A1, is the original agreement of sale, which was impounded and deficit stamp duty was paid. Now the dispute is only with regard to Ex. A3 i.e., the supplementary agreement of sale dated 17.4.2003.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even under Ex. A3 supplementary agreement dated 17.4.2003, there are recitals to the effect that possession was delivered and hence the same is liable for stamp duty and registration. He submits that to the original agreement of sale dated 7.5.2002, only the 1st plaintiff is party, and to the supplementary agreement of sale dated 17.4.2003, both the plaintiffs are parties. Learned Counsel further submits that the supplementary agreement of sale is not in continuation of the alleged original agreement of sale, and it is a separate agreement, to which both the plaintiffs are the parties, and hence the same is liable for stamp duty and registration. As the said supplementary agreement is not properly stamped, it cannot be marked and the Trial Court oblivious of this fact, marked the said document as Ex. A3, and the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, the learned Counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order and submits that the supplementary agreement cannot be taken into consideration.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 1 and 2 submits that the schedule property in both the agreements is one and the same. As there are recitals in the original agreement of sale with regard to delivery of possession, and as the document was not properly stamped, it was impounded and stamp duty and penalty was paid. The supplementary agreement is in continuation of the original agreement, and it is a verbatim of the earlier agreement and in the supplementary agreement, payment details and necessary permissions/clearances to be obtained by the parties, are agreed upon. Therefore, he submits that multiple payments of stamp duty pertaining to the very same transaction, cannot be ordered and it is sufficient if the principle document is stamped, since the source of delivery of possession is the original agreement. Learned Counsel further submits that it is a suit for specific performance and in the said suit, the unregistered documents can be admitted in evidence in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned Counsel submits that the Court below considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the present interlocutory application filed by the defendants, and the same may not be interfered with by this Court.

5. In this case it is to be seen that to the original agreement, only one of the plaintiffs is the party, and it is stated that the same has already been impounded, and to the supplementary agreement, both the plaintiffs are parties and in the supplementary agreement, there are recitals with regard to delivery of possession. When once party to litigation relies on a document, which is liable to be stamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') the same cannot be adm