THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2412 of 2025 % Dated 31.07.2025 # Bamandlapally Prabhakar S/o.Bamandlapally Sadanandam, aged about 33 years, Occ: private employee, R/o. Plot No.26, CBCID Colony, Rama Murthy Nagar, Near Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another ….Petitioners VERSUS $ Kandikattu Sreekanth S/o.K. Subbaiah, aged: about 52 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.6-3-347/9-s/b/502, Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 82 … Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. V. Umapathi Sarma ^ Counsel for Respondent :

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320

2. (2024) 3 SCC 232 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2412 of 2025

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article

227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.226 of 2025 in O.S.No.85 of 2020, where-under the application filed by the petitioners/defendants to send the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 for impounding and to direct the respondent/plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. V. Umapathi Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. The notice in respect of the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with, as the civil revision petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2020. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the Court below.

4. Brief facts of the case

4.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the District Judge, Medak District, against the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit and sought other consequential reliefs.

4.2. The above said suit was posted for further examination of the plaintiff/PW.1. During the course of his examination, when the plaintiff is marking the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 as an exhibit, the counsel for the defendants had raised an objection stating that the said document was insufficiently stamped, and, hence, the same is not admissible in evidence and the document is liable to be impounded. The Court below after verifying the document directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid the stamp duty of Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-, i.e., total amount is Rs.1,100/-, by way of challan on 20.01.2025.

4.3. Subsequently, the defendants have filed an application i.e., I.A.No.226 of 2025 under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to send the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 to the District Registrar, Sangareddy, for impounding, and to direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar.

4.4. The Court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the said application, by its order dated 18.06.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants field the present civil revision petition. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants:

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 is insufficiently stamped. Hence, the said document is inadmissible in evidence. Unless and until the plaintiff pays the deficit stamp duty and penalty, as per the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Act’) the agreement of sale cannot be marked as an exhibit. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the agreement of sale requires registration. If the