THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1089 OF 2011 DATED: 27.06.2011 Between : Ramila Satya Lingam .. Petitioner And 1. B. N. Keshav Rao and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1089 OF 2011 The Revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.No.12 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII MM Cyberabad, Malkajgiri, which is filed by the respondents herein under Section 10 (3) (a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule property. One of the grounds on which the eviction was sought appears to be that the tenant / Revision petitioner owns another premises in the same locality. The revision petitioner denied the said plea contending that he had already sold the said premises. To substantiate the said plea, the Revision petitioner during his evidence sought to produce the Agreement of Sale, dated 20.07.2008. Alleging that the Court below by order dated 21.02.2011 directed the Revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.54,950/- towards deficit stamp duty payable on the said Agreement of Sale, dated 20.07.2008, the present Revision Petition is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the document in question was sought to be produced only for a collateral purpose, neither stamp duty nor registration is necessary and therefore the Court below committed a grave error in directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below never adjudicated upon the admissibility of the document in question and as such there is no cause of action for the present Revision Petition. On a perusal of the material available on record, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is true that a note was put up by the office of the Court below that a sum of Rs.54,950/- is payable towards deficit stamp duty on the document in question and by order dated 21.02.2011 the learned Junior Civil Judge directed to inform the same to the counsel for the Revision petitioner. However the question whether the Agreement of Sale, dated 20.07.2008 sought to be produced by the Revision petitioner is admissible in evidence or not on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered was neither considered nor adjudicated by the Court much less there was a direction for payment of the alleged deficit stamp duty. Therefore it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion at this stage as to the admissibility of the document in question. Instead, I deem it appropriate to permit the Revision petitioner to raise his objections before the Court below. It is submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that the evidence is still in progress. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of permitting the Revision Petitioner to submit his objections to the note put up by the office of the Court below that a sum of Rs.54,950/- is payable towards deficit stamp duty. If any such objections are raised within one week from the date of receipt of this order, the Court below shall adjudicate upon the same after hearing both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt.27.06.2011 Note: issue C.C. in two days. gbs