Documents marked as exhibits can be subsequently objected to for admissibility if not duly stamped, requiring judicial determination on the issue of admissibility.

ORDER :

T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the I Additional District Judge at Suryapet dt.03.09.2025 in I.A.No.169 of 2025 in O.S.No.49 of 2019.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. Defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.169 of 2025 under Order 13 Rule 3 of CPC to reject and de-exhibit Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dt.07.04.2017. It is stated that the agreement of sale dt.07.04.2017 was marked during the chief examination, but at the time of marking the said document, neither defendant No.1 nor its counsel was present and that in Ex.A.1 original agreement of sale dt.07.04.2017, there is a recital that possession of the suit schedule was delivered to the party and in the plaint pleadings, it was also mentioned that possession was delivered and if possession was delivered, the said document is to be treated as sale deed and it requires stamp duty and penalty, but the plaintiff did not pay the required stamp duty and penalty and therefore, the said document cannot be marked. Therefore, it was prayed to reject and de- exhibit Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dt.07.04.2017. The same was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter submitting that the said petition is not maintainable and particularly since defendant No.1 denied delivery of possession in his written statement in the main suit. It is also stated that it is not correct to say that defendant No.1 or its counsel was not present in Court on 30.06.2025 at the time of marking of Ex.A.1and that the cross-examination of P.W.1 was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for defendant No.1 and that there was no objection at the time of marking of Ex.A.1. It is further stated that Ex.A.1 has since been marked and has been admitted into evidence, such admission cannot be called in question in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Javer Chand and others Vs. Pukhraj Surana , AIR 1961 SC 1655 , wherein it was held that once a document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. It is stated that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is taking contrary stands, one in the written statement that possession is not delivered and the second in I.A. No.169 of 2025 that possession is delivered and therefore, such a stand cannot be accepted and the plaintiff cannot be called to pay the stamp duty since the point for consideration by the Court will depend on a finding whether possession has at all been delivered in terms of the agreement of sale or not. It is further stated that if the Court gives a finding on the possession, the plaintiff undertakes to pay the stamp duty upon the document being sent for determination of the actual stamp duty leviable on the instrument Ex.A.1 after reference to the Collector under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. It was therefore prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.169 of 2025.

3. The trial Court, however, allowed I.A.No.169 of 2025 and held that Ex.A.1 is demarked and liberty is given to respondent No.1/plaintiff to take necessary steps to seek impounding of the document and to make a request to mark the document again as exhibit in evidence. The trial Court observed that since there is a recital of handing over of possession in the agreement of sale, it amounts to conveyance deed and requires stamp duty under Schedule-1-A of Article 47A, Explanation I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and as per Section 35 of the said Act, instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible