HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2567 OF 2024

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 11.07.2024, passed by the I Additional Family Court - Cum - XIV, Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.800 of 2024 in O.P.No.53 of 2022, whereby and where under the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 of CPC and Section 14 of Family Court Act to receive certain documents is dismissed.

2. Heard Sri G. M. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, no representation on behalf of respondents, though Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi, entered appearance on behalf of respondent. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein filed O.P.No.53 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Family Court - Cum - XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad for declaration and consequential recovery of possession and damages. Respondent entered appearance and filed written statement and issues were framed, the trial commenced and PW1 was examined. The matter came up for further evidence, at that stage, the petitioner filed the present application to receive the original construction agreement dated 01.08.2016 and also ICICI Bank statement. The respondent filed counter resisting the said application.

3.1 The Judge, Family Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024 on the ground that the said document was not named and only the contents of the document show it as construction document and the value of document was Rs.4 Crores and in order to escape impounding of stamp duty, the petitioner came up with the petition to mark the document and thus, same cannot be entertained.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned documents which are sought to be taken on record are mentioned in the List of documents in the O.P. and therefore, petitioner was not introducing any new document, in fact he is filing the original documents of the photocopies which were already filed along with the O.P. He would further submit that Judge, Family Court has erroneously dismissed the application on perverse observation with regard to impounding stamp duty of the document which can be gone into at the time of marking of documents. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and thus, prayed to allow the revision.

5. Perusal of record would disclose that petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) seeking to receive the original construction agreement dated 01.08.2016 and ICICI Bank statement which are mentioned at Serial Nos.8 and 9 of list of documents of O.P and by way of this application the originals of the same are sought to be taken on record. Further, the issue of payment of deficit or improper stamp duty can be adjudicated while marking documents, after the same are taken on record and while considering an application to receive the said documents, the issue cannot be gone into. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that petitioner has not paid stamp duty and the petitioner is ready to pay the same, once the document is taken on record.

6. In A.P.Laly Vs. Gurram Rama Rao, 2017 (6) ALD 300, this Court held as follows:

“ In view of the above position, in the absence of any evidence as to the availability of a decision of the

trial Court with regard to document in question as to its admission, the application as filed by the defendant is maintainable and it is open to the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty as per the Rules and make a request to admit the same in evidence and it is for the Court to admit the document and mark the same.

In view of the above legal position, the order under revision cannot be held to be erroneous and the Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

7. In Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Sub