THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3722 OF 2024 Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. This Civil Revision Petition (‘CRP’) arises out of an Order dated 23.08.2024 in C.O.S.No.3 of 2018 (‘Commercial Suit’) passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District (‘Trial Court’). The petitioners before this Court were the defendants before the Trial Court in the said Commercial Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of money towards liquidated damages and other claims.

2. The respondent/plaintiff is the owner and landlord while the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 is the lessee to the suit schedule property (cold storage building, plant and machinery) who entered into a Lease Agreement dated 15.06.2011 and a Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2011 in pursuance thereof. The defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 while the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the Directors.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the petitioners had already vacated the suit schedule property but the respondent had refrained from taking possession thereafter and that the Commercial Suit had been filed on account of the alleged extensive damage caused by the petitioners/defendants to the suit schedule property as well as to recover the arrears of rent, water and electricity charges. The impugned order was passed with respect to the objections raised by the petitioners/defendants regarding the marking of certain documents relied upon by the respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the challenge in the present CRP is restricted to the decision of the Trial Court rejecting the objections of the petitioners while holding that the Supplementary Agreement executed between the parties on 16.06.2011 does not require compulsory registration under section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908 (prescribing compulsory registration for leases) or payment as per Article 31 of Schedule I-A to The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (specifying the rates of stamp duty on leases) and that the stamp duty of Rs.100/- paid thereto is sufficient for the said document.

5. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants who submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that the Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2011 is not a separate or an independent lease deed, but is consequential to the main Lease Agreement dated 15.06.2011 thereby, rendering the stamp duty of Rs.100/-

paid in that regard to be sufficient.

6. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is present.

7. The dispute before us is limited to the issue of whether the Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2011 should be seen as a separate and independent document to the main Lease Agreement dated 15.06.2011.

8. The petitioners rely upon Harpreet Singh Chhabra Vs. Mrs.Suneet Kaur Sahney, 2018 (5) ALT 681 (D.B.) wherein it was held that despite the prohibition contained in section 8 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed. However, the exercise of the said jurisdiction must depend upon the facts of each case and may be invoked where the circumstances so warrant.

9. Whereas the respondent places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasad Technology Park (P) Ltd. V. Sub-Registrar, (2006) 1 SCC 473 which pertained to the execution of a supplementary agreement pursuant to a lease cum sale agreement whereby the name as well as the nature of business of the lessee company was altered. The issue there was whether this supplementary agreement could be construed as a lease deed so as to attract the payment of stamp duty under Article 5(d) of the Sched