THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5803 of 2015

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 28.10.2015 in O.S.No.78 of 2014 passed by the learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri.B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. During the course of marking of the said documents, as the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the original agreement of sale dated 06.11.2013 and the same was engrossed on Rs.100/- Indian Non-Judicial Stamp executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and during the course of marking of the said documents an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant for marking the documents stating that the agreement of sale, requires registration and payment of stamp duty and the document is engraved on insufficient stamp. The learned Judge, having heard both sides held that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant was not sustainable on the ground that Ex.A1 was engraved on the stamp worth of Rs.100/- which was sufficient, as laid down under Section 17 and the same can be received in the evidence under Section 49 of Indian Evidence Act. Having rejected the above objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant, the learned Judge marked the said agreement of sale as Ex.A1.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judge, the present revision is filed contending that the agreement of sale is inadmissible on account of insufficient stamp duty and non-registration; therefore, the same could not have been marked in the evidence and further averred that Section 49 of Indian Evidence Act has nothing to do with the objection raised and reliance on the same for the purpose of overruling the objection as patently erroneous and the trial Court has committed serious illegality in recording the finding that stamp worth Rs.100/- is sufficient for agreement of sale and thereby committed jurisdictional error in overruling the objection made by the petitioner/defendant and proceeded with marking the same as Ex.A1. It is further contended that the agreement of sale sought to be marked is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, ought to have been impounded under Section 33 of the said Act before marking the said document, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in 2008 (9) SCC 401 and further averred that the present case is chargeable under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. Hence, prayed to allow the Revision.

5. Admittedly, the subject suit was filed for specific performance of the contract of sale, basing on the agreement of sale, which is said to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the value of the suit schedule property was fixed at Rs.56,75,000/-. It is averred that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through a cheque bearing No.970772 dated 06.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakkalautta Branch of Hanamkonda towards part payment as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale. Subsequently, the defendant was also paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- on 13.11.2013 and agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- by 06.12.2013 and remaining balance i.e., Rs.31,75,000/- to be paid within 90 days to get the registration.

6. Admittedly, the said agreement was executed in hand writing engrossed on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp paper. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that inspite of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant at the time of marking of the document, learned Judge, without considering the objection, has proceeded to mark the same. Learned counsel for t