HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CRP No.2769 of 2009 ORDER ::

The 1st plaintiff is the revision petitioner herein. At the time of cross-examination of PW1, when an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the 2nd defendants-respondent herein as to the admissibility of the agreement of sale, marked as Ex-A7, on the ground that it is inadmissible for want of proper stamp duty and penalty, the trial Court, by the impugned the docket order dated 07-04-2009, upheld the objection and observed that unless proper stamp duty and penalty is paid, Ex-A7 agreement of sale is to be eschewed from consideration. Hence, this civil revision petition.

2. Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when once the document is admitted in evidence and marked as an ’exhibit’, and no objection for such marking of the document as an ‘exhibit’ was raised, the statutory embargo envisaged under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short, ‘the Act’) operates and except as provided under Section 61 of the Act, it cannot

be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It is further contended that since no objection was taken either by the defendants or by the Court when Ex-A7 was marked, it is not open for the 2nd defendant now to contend that it is insufficiently stamped and it is also not open for the Court to recall the order. Decisions in R.V.E VENKATACHALA GOUNDER vs. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI & VP TEMPLE, [AIR 2003 SC 4548], PHOOLCHAND AGARWAL vs. D. NARAYANA SWAMY C. PRITHIVI RAJ REDDY vs. GPR HOUSING PVT. LTD, [2011 (1) ALD 289]., POLAMRAJU RAMA SESHAGIRI RAO vs. CHENNAPAGADA

VENKATA NAGA SATYAVATHI, [2007 (4) ALD 62] are relied on.

3. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that mere receiving of a document may not be construed as the admissibility or proof of a document and the trial Court, inasmuch as, the instrument Ex-A7 contains a recital about the

2 2006 (1) ALD 289

delivery of possession of property in question, rightly required the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty and unless it is paid, it has to be eschewed from consideration. It is also contended that under Order 13, Rule 3 CPC, the trial Court is empowered to reject any document which is found to be irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence at any stage of the suit and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Decisions in SRINIVASA BUILDERS vs. A. JANGA REDDDY, [2016 (2) ALT 321] & SYED YOUSUF ALI vs. MOHD. YOUSUF, [LAWS (APH) 2016 28] are relied on.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

5. The point that arises from consideration is whether the trial Court which admitted the document in evidence as Ex-A7, can now reject on an objection being raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant to eschew the instrument from consideration on the ground it is insufficiently stamped; moreso in the light of the fact that the 2^nd defendant did not raise any such objection, at the time of marking the document as Ex-A7.

6. In this connection, reference to relevant provision of law would be required for better appreciation. Section 36 of the Stamp Act reads thus:-

36. Admission of instruments, where not to be questioned---Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.

7. The words “admitted in evidence” contemplate the procedure under Order 13, Rules 3 & 4 CPC is followed. Order 13, Rules 3 and 4 CPC reads thus:-

“3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents:- The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.

4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence:- (1)

Subject to the provisions of the