THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1097 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the

order dated 06.01.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2023 in O.S.No.144 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.20 of 2013) on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Metpalli (for short, “the trial Court”) wherein and whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 38(2) of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 seeking to send the Original unstamped and unregistered agreement of sale dated 13.06.2010 to the District Registrar, Jagtial erstwhile Karimnagar, for impounding, by collecting the

deficit stamp duty with penalty was partly allowed.

2. Mr.K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.K.P.Vijay

Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Registrar concerned is the competent authority to evaluate appropriate stamp duty and penalty if any; that Chief Ministerial Officer of the concerned trial Court is not an expert to calculate the Stamp Duty payable on the said document viz., agreement of

sale dated 13.10.2000. Therefore, he states that the trial Court had committed error in directing the Chief Ministerial Officer to calculate the Stamp duty and hence, seeks to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for respondents contends that as per Section 33(1) of Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court is empowered to impound the document, if it is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, he submits that interference of this Court, at this stage is not warranted and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition.

5. For better understanding the operative portion of the impugned order is extracted as under:-

16. The Chief Ministerial Officer of this Court is directed to calculate the Stamp Duty to be imposed on such document dated 13.06.2010 and inform the same to the Petitioner/Plaintiff or to his learned counsel to enable them to pay.

On such information, the petitioner/plaintiff shall deposit such Deficit Stamp Duty on such document. On such deposit, the Chief Ministerial Officer of this Court is requested to enter the same in the Instrument Impounding Register, send an authenticated copy of the said instrument together with a Certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof along with copy of receipt collecting the fee to the District Registrar, Jagtial as required under Section 38(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.

17. In the result, the Petition is partly allowed in above terms. The Petitioner/Plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit stamp duty and with its penalty on or before 27.01.2025.

6. The trial Court, while relying on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srinivasa Builders Vs. A.Janga Reddy1, wherein it is held that, “the original Court on its own or at the instance of opposite side or the Appellate or Revisional Court can review the decision of admissibility on improperly stamped document even after its receipt in evidence”, rendered the impugned order 06.01.2025.

7. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court is seized of the fact that the trial Court had directed its Chief Ministerial Officer to calculate the Stamp Duty that is to be imposed on the Original unstamped and unregistered agreement of sale dated 13.06.2010. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that directing the Chief Ministerial Officer to calculate the Stamp Duty is not permissible under law. Therefore, the order dated 06.01.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2023 in O.S.No.144 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.20 of 2013) on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Metpalli is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with law.

2016 Law Suit (Hyderabad) 36

8. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Pet