THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Civil Revision Petition No.616 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Nitin, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appeared for the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners challenging the Docket Order dated 23.02.2022 passed in an un-numbered Original Suit being, O.S.(SR).No.444 of 2022 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad, insisting for payment of sufficient stamp duty on the Agreement of Sale dated 19.11.2020, for registering the plaint, at the time of registration of the plaint as a suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that defendants approached the plaintiffs stating that they are the absolute owners and possessors of suit agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.20 gts in Sy.No.48/1, Acs.3.20 gts. in Sy.No.48/2, Acs.6.21 gts. in Sy.No.48/3, totally admeasuring Acs.13.21 gts. situate at Chengomul Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana; that defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs, and after due consultations, the plaintiffs came forward to purchase the above land and entered into Agreement of Sale dated 19.11.2020; since defendants failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement of sale dated 19.11.2020, another Agreement of Sale dated 15.03.2021 was executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiffs; that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3 crores, the plaintiffs have paid Rs.1,72,00,000; that according to the Agreement of Sale dated 15.03.2021, the balance sale consideration should be paid at the time of registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs; that later the plaintiffs came to know that there was a dispute with the Endowments Department in respect of the suit schedule property; that the plaintiffs requested the defendants to clear off the litigation and to come forward for execution of registered sale deed, but the respondents gave evasive replies; and on 01.02.2022, the defendants tried to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties.

4. Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed suit O.S.(SR).No.444 of 2022 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.03.2021 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

5. The Court below heard the learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs and, by Docket Order dated 23.02.2022, rejected the suit on the ground of ‘insufficient stamp duty’ and directed the plaintiffs to pay sufficient stamp duty on the Agreement of Sale dated 15.03.2021 within seven (07) days from the date of the order.

6. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Court below cannot reject the plaint at the threshold for payment of stamp duty even before numbering the suit without considering whether the possession is delivered to the petitioners / plaintiffs, and that it can be decided at the time of evidence, but not at the time of numbering the suit; that the Court below has committed grave error in rejecting the plaint at the threshold; and relied on the decisions in Khasim Saheb vs. S. Hanumanthu¹ and Bantupalli Naga Raju vs. Yechuri Satya Kameswara Rao²

8. It is well-settled that the question of payment of deficit stamp duty on any document will arise only at the stage of evidence and

2005 (1) ALD 596

2 Civil Revision Petition No.5376 of 2012, dt.19.01.2021, A.P. High Court, Amravati.

that too when the document is sought to be tendered in evidence. Further, the Court below may at any stage examine the documents filed by the parties and necessary steps may be initiated to put the parties to notice if a particular document is not sufficiently stamped or that it requires stamp duty, etc. But, the stage for collecting the deficit stamp duty will definitely arise only when the document is sought to be tendered in evidence.

9. Coming to the case on hand, even before the