JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. When a document was found to be insufficiently stamped the further proceedings were, unwittingly, diverted through a wrong track. After it covered a long distance everybody concerned realised that the lis was proceeding through a wrong course. It has now to be reversed and put in the proper track.

3. Appellant filed a civil suit before the Munsif Court, Madanapalle (Andhra Pradesh) as early as 1988. The main relief claimed in the suit is enforcement of an agreement executed on 26.6.1986 for sale of an immovable property. When the agreement was produced in court it was found to be insufficiently stamped and the learned Munsif impounded it and forwarded the instrument to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for the purpose of taking further action on it (the Collector must have delegated his powers to the R.D.O. in that behalf). He called for a report from a subordinate revenue officer regarding the real market value of the property which is mentioned in the document.

4. On the strength of the said report the R.D.O. found that the market value of the property was Rs. 64,880/- and hence the agreement of sale should have been stamped with an additiona