ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dated 22.04.2019, allowing I.A.No.207 of 2019 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, filed under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to the defendant to pay the stamp duty and penalty on B1.

2. Heard Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/2nd respondent/defendant and Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ petitioner/2nd plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The petition was filed stating the facts, in brief, as follows:

(a) The 1st plaintiff, M/s. Y.S.R. Company represented by its Proprietor, Yerram Sesha Reddy, filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule properties. The 2nd plaintiff, Peddireddy Sridevi, is impleaded as per orders, dated 11.06.2014, in I.A.No.243 of 2014 in O.S.No.3 of 2006. When the suit was posted for arguments, it came to light that an unregistered lease deed, dated 01.09.1998, styled as ‘lease letter’ was marked as exhibit B1. It requires registration and stamp duty and, as no stamp duty was collected, the document needs to be impounded. According to the plaintiff, the defendant got marked the said document by misleading the Court. Though the said document is marked as exhibit B1, the defendant has to pay stamp duty and penalty on it. Hence, this petition was filed seeking direction to the

2nd respondent/defendant to pay stamp duty and penalty.

(b) The 2nd respondent/defendant filed counter stating that the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was completed, the defendant was examined as DW1 and on his behalf, DW2 & 3 were also examined. The defendant filed I.A.No.249 of 2015 to summon the Branch Manager, SBI, Chirala, to produce the document and give evidence. The said petition was dismissed and the revision preferred by the defendant is pending. The 1st plaintiff orally leased out the schedule ginning mill and office building bearing Door No.3-5(2), Assessment No.507, to the defendant on 01.09.1996 along with electrical connections for a period of 99 years. As per the lease agreement, no lease amount shall be paid for first ten years, i.e., from 01.09.1996 onwards and the rent payable is Rs.5,000/- every year besides payment of existing liabilities towards panchayat taxes and other taxes. The defendant was also permitted to sub-lease the property. Thus, the defendant became lessee of the schedule mill premises. The 1st plaintiff also executed a lease letter on 01.09.1998 acknowledging the lease. The said document was marked as exhibit B1 without any objection. DW1 was cross- examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs at length. Thus, marking of the lease letter as exhibit B1 is not wrong. The averments in the petition regarding payment of stamp duty and all other allegations are false. Exhibit B1 does not require any stamp duty and registration. Exhibit B1 is admissible and enforceable in law. There are no bona fides and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that the document, dated 01.09.1998, marked as exhibit B1 requires stamp duty and penalty and directed the 2nd respondent/defendant to pay the stamp duty and penalty.

5. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is preferred by the defendant mainly contending that the present application is filed after delay of four years, that the trial Court failed to appreciate that exhibit B1 is a letter acknowledging the lease, which was executed in favour of the defendant, and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the nomenclature of exhibit B1 letter issued in favour of the defendant. The trial Court further failed to address itself whether the document in question attracts stamp duty on the acknowledgment made by the plaintiff in favour of the