The court ruled that an un-stamped and un-registered lease agreement, marked as evidence without timely objection, is inadmissible, underscoring the necessity for compliance with registration requirements.

ORDER :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.290 of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Petitioners herein are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9, respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1-plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.10 to 13 in I.A.No.290 of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015.

3. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.290 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to de-exhibit Ex.A-2 dated 19.06.2008 which is captioned as “Shop in Shop Agreement”.

4.1 Affidavit is sworn by Smt.K. Annapurna (petitioner No.8 herein) stating that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and damages against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, who are the defendants in the suit, in respect of property i.e., Ground Floor, Shop No.1 at Vah Magna Super Centre, No.7-C, Margadarsi Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad admeasuring approximately 1127 Sq. ft. carpet area with specific boundaries.

4.2 Respondent No.1-plaintiff has obtained the premises as sub-tenant from M/s.Vah Magna Retail Private Limited, who was the principal-tenant, and filed a document captioned as ‘Shop in Shop Agreement’ dated 19.06.2008 claiming that the suit schedule property was let out for a period of 15 years from 01.07.2008. Petitioners herein, who are the defendant Nos.1 to 9, filed their written statement contending that the lease agreement dated 19.06.2008 which was engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- requires stamp duty of 5% on three times of average annual rental value or on 5% of market value of the property whichever is higher.

4.3 During the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff, he got marked Exs.A-1 to A-56. At the time of marking the documents, the petitioners’ counsel was held up in other Court and appeared before the Court after conclusion of marking of the documents and by that time document dated 19.06.2008 was already marked as Ex.A2, which is un-stamped and un-registered document, which cannot be received as evidence and prayed to de-exhibit the same.

5. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed counter contending that petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9 failed to take objection for admission of ‘Shop in Shop Agreement’ at appropriate time, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. Objection of marking a document should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once document is marked, it cannot be objected. Failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document. Marking of a document is different from proving of the document. The said document can be relied upon for collateral purpose and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.290 of 2022 holding that “Since the petitioner did not raise objection for admissibility of the document on the ground of insufficient stamp duty when it was tendered in evidence on 18.12.2019 and marked as Ex.A-2 in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff, who sought time, for cross-examining the witness, as can be seen from the deposition and docket proceedings of the said date. The petitioners cannot raise the said objection at this stage, after more than two years of chief examination and marking of the said d