ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders dated 26.12.2019 in IA No.617 of 2019 in IA No.1194 of 2018 in on the file of the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. This application in IA No.617 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to send the original unregistered agreement of sale deed dated 24.08.2001 executed by defendant No.1, late Sri Abdul Rasheed, the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 to 6 in favour of plaintiff, to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad, for impounding the same by paying the required stamp duty and penalty.

3. This application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the trial Court directing the office to transmit the said agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad for impounding with required stamp duty and penalty. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the defendant No.1 has filed this civil revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant and the respondents. Perused the material available on record. Detailed submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.

6. The plaintiff has filed original suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 against the defendants. The defendant No.1 has filed the written statement. Subsequent to the filing of written statement, it appears the defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives - wife and children, who are the defendants 2 to 6, are brought on record.

7. It is pertinent to note that the defendants failed to resist this application filed in IA No.617 of 2019 before trial Court, whereby the trial Court has specifically mentioned in the order impugned that the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has reported no counter. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the present case, since the original suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 and the written statement was filed long back and the suit is being adjourned for trial, the trial Court has directed the office to send the agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad for impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty.

8. The defendants having failed to resist the matter before the trial Court, when the order impugned was passed, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alleging that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and the order impugned is not sustainable and it is contrary to the settled principles of law that mere payment of stamp duty will not cure the defect under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant strenuously contends that the trial Court has erred in sending the document to the District Registrar for impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty and mere payment of stamp duty and penalty will not cure the defect under Section 17of Registration Act and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions :

(i) B. Bal Reddy v. B. Ram Reddy and others, [2015 (12) LAWS (APH) 43 = 2016 (2) ALD 435]; and

(ii) Decision of this Court in CRP No.7021 of 2018, dated 19.06.2019.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions.

(i) In B. Bal Reddy’s case (1st supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that in a suit for perpetual injunction, a “consent declaration” executed between the parties and that the document was referred to the District Registrar for impounding. In that context, it was held by