O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.13971 of 2018 in O.S.No.6207 of 2012 dated 05.03.2019.

2. O.S.No.6207 of 2012 is a suit for specific performance of alleged agreements of sale dated 23.12.2009 and 12.05.2010. The plaintiff pleaded that, after having entered into the agreement, the first defendant, who is the owner of the property had alienated the property in favour of the second defendant by way of a registered document in Doc.No.964 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Anna Nagar. Therefore, she sought for a declaration that the said document is null and void. In the alternative, the plaintiff also pleaded for a direction to the first defendant to return the advance amount of Rs.10,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant entered appearance and she filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, the parties were pushed for trial.

3. The plaintiff examined herself and marked Exs.P1 to P17. Ex.P1 is the sale agreement dated 23.12.2009 and Ex.P17 is the agreement dated 12.05.2010. At the time of marking of the said documents, there was no objection on the part of the first defendant that the documents are unstamped and require stamp duty.

Consequently, the said documents were received and exhibited as aforesaid.

4. Thereafter, the first defendant took out an application in I.A.No.13971 of

2018 seeking for a direction under Order XIII Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code to impound the agreements dated 23.12.2009 and 12.05.2010. The ground on which she wanted the documents to be impounded was that, after the enactment of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement cannot be received in evidence. This application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a detailed counter. The learned trial Judge, after analyzing the petition came to the conclusion that the petition does not deserve consideration and dismissed the said petition. Hence, the present revision.

5. I heard Mr.A.Kumar for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.S.Arivalagan for the respondents.

6. Mr.Kumar, drawing my attention to the amendment under Section 17(1A)

of the Registration Act, argues that as the agreements are unregistered, they cannot be received in evidence. He urges that on account of his personal inconvenience, he could not be present in Court on the date on which the documents were marked and the plaintiff had marked the documents in his absence. He pleads that the order of the trial Judge is erroneous and requires to be revised. He further contends that between the date on which order was passed in I.A.No.13971 of 2018 and before a stay was granted by this Court on 06.11.2019, the learned Judge has closed the evidence of the plaintiff and posted it for the evidence of the defendants.

7. Per contra, Mr.Arivalagan invites my attention to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and points out that only if a party seeks for part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, he is not entitled to rely upon an unregistered document. In case the plaintiff seeks for a mere specific performance of the contract of sale, then Mr.Arivalagan urges that he is entitled to introduce the documents in terms of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed on record.

9. The power to impound a document is given under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Under the said provision, if during the course of evidence, a Court or Tribunal or an authority empowered to record evidence comes across a document which bears insufficient stamp duty, it is the duty of the Court or Tribunal or authority recording evidence, to impound the document and send it to the Collector for proceeding under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act.

10. The agreement is on a Rs.20/- stamp paper. Therefore, it is not a case where the