ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2022 in I.A.No.107 of 2022 in I.A. No.34 of 2022 in O.S.No.73 of 2022 passed by the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The parties herein are referred as petitioner and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The Suit vide O.S.No.73 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against respondents/defendants for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, he filed I.A.No.107 of 2022 in I.A.No.34 of 2022 before the trial Court to send the unregistered agreement of sale dated 06.05.1981 to the District Registrar, Hyderabad for impounding the said document by receiving deficit stamp duty as per law. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial Court has gone into the merits of the case and the document being relied by the petitioner was thrown away at the threshold whereas it is the duty of the trial Court to see whether the deficit stamp duty is paid or not. At the stage of impounding the document, the trial Court need not probe into the fact whether the said document will pass the test of relevancy to be admissible in evidence or not. The document was to be impounded first and later the admissibility is to be considered. The document in question was the suit document and required proper stamp duty and the dismissal of the same on hyper technical grounds has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. In the counter filed by respondents in I.A.No.107 of 2022, they contended that the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limini. The petitioner by suppressing the real facts obtained ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against the respondents basing on the fabricated, unregistered, insufficiently stamped agreement of sale and it cannot be received in evidence. One Mr. Mehdi Nawaz Khan and five others alleged to have executed a Notorized General Power of Attorney, dated 17.07.1980 in favour of Sunderlal Hazari to look after the property in Sy.No.71 admeasuring Ac.13 acres 6 guntas situated in Jiyaguda, Kulsumpura, Hyderabad. Later Sunderlal Hazari, the alleged GPA holder sub delegated his power to some other persons namely, Janakram, Satyanarayan by executing Regd.GPA vide Doc.No.92 of 1980, dated 24.09.1980 for which he has no right to sub delegate the power under the alleged Notorized GPA dated 17.07.1980. As per Section 190 of Contract Act, 1872, prohibits delegation of powers by an agent in favour of sub-agent, “delegates non protest delegare”

(A delegated authority cannot be delegated further).

7. In the counter, respondents further submitted that the person who alleged to have executed an agreement of sale dated 06.05.1981 in favour of the petitioner is void abinitio since he has no right or power to execute the same on behalf of the principal. An agent cannot employ a sub-agent to get the work done through him. Moreover, the person who alleged to have executed the earlier documents are not parties to the present proceedings, as such in the absence of the parties, in the present petition, the question of sending the document for collection of stamp duty does not arise.

8. Considering the arguments on both sides, the trial Court held that no purpose would be served in sending the insufficiently stamped unregistered agreement of sale of the District Registrar, Hyderabad to impound the same and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked even for collateral purpose in the suit and accordingly dismissed the application.

9. Petitioner/Plaintiff in the suit contended that he is the absolute owner and peac