THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.838 of 2011 (Dated : 18-08-2011) Between: P.Pradeep S/o P.Joseph Kadapa ..Petitioner A n d Indian Financial Association of Seventh Day Adventists and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.838 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 18.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.75 of 2011 in O.S.No.40 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge ordered to send the impounded agreement of sale dated 23.6.2010 to the District Registrar, Kadapa for adjudication as per Circular of the High Court in Roc.No.1544/SO-3- 2010 dated 8.12.2010. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.40 of 2010. He filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale-dated 23.6.2010. He moved I.A.No.75 of 2011 under Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act read with Section 151 CPC to send the agreement of sale dated 23.6.2010 to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding. The learned Additional District Judge passed the following order on 18.02.2011. “ Send the impounded agreement of sale dated 23-6-2010 to the District Registrar, Kadapa for adjudication as per Circular of the Hon’ble High Court in Roc.No.1544/SO-3-2010 dated 8.12.2010.” The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner in I.A.No.75 of 2011 is to send the agreement of sale dated 23.6.2010 to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding. The petitioner never sought for impounding of the agreement of sale by the Court. It is contended by the learned counsel that when the petitioner made a request to send the document to the District Registrar for collection of proper stamp duty, the Court is bound to send the same. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Chintalapudi Annapurnamma v. A.Punnayya Sastry[1] and a decision of this Court in L.Rama Seethamma v. Telugu Solipuram Narasimha[2] 5. In Chintalapudi Annapurnamma’s case (2nd supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as hereunder:- “ In our view the principle laid down in B.V.R.Reddy’s case (3 supra) [ 1974(2) An.W.R 240] , is in tune with the aforesaid principles laid down in the case of Balkrishna vs. Board of Revenue [ AIR 1970 M.P. 74]. The principles laid down in both the cases are similar to the effect that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to impound a document under Section 33 of the Act. Section 35 debars a document from being admitted in evidence, subject to certain limitations, and if the intention of the party is to have the document admitted, it is imperative to obey the order of impounding authority by paying the duty and penalty, and in case of failure to pay such duty, the Court or Tribunal has no option but to send the document under Section 38(2) to the Collector. In other words, the Court cannot compel the party to have the document admitted in evidence after paying the duty and penalty assessed by the Court, but instead, it has to forward such document as prescribed under Section 38(2)”. 6. In view of the settled proposition of law, the order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa needs to be modified and it is modified thus:- “ Send the agreement of sale dated 23.6.2010 to the District Registrar, Kadapa for adjudication of proper stamp duty and penalty.” 7. With the above modification, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.18-08-2011 Note:- Issue CC in three days (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.838 of 2011 (Dated : 18-08-2011) [1] 2000(3) ALT 159 (D.B) [2] 2002(6) ALT 239