THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1424 of 2007 Date: 10.2.2011 Between: Kuruva Sivanna ……….. Petitioner/defendant. And Penti Nagaraju ……. Respondent/plaintiff. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1424 of 2007 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2007 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Adoni. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the original suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and he filed the suit basing on agreement of sale dated 27.8.1998 executed by him. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2002 was filed before II Additional District Judge, Kunool On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as P.W.1. He filed chief affidavit along with the documents and the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A1. Subsequently, the suit has been transferred to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool and renumbered as O.S.No.3 of 2006 then the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act seeking to impound the suit agreement on the ground that the recitals of the said document go to show that the possession has already been delivered and in view of the same, stamp duty paid on the document is not sufficient. The lower Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that the document was already marked when the matter was pending before II Additional District Court at Kurnool and moreover the recitals of the document go to show that there was no actual delivery of possession of the land under the said agreement of sale dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the earlier judgment of this Court in case between V.L. NARASIMHA RAO v. K.T PENTAIAH (died) per L.Rs.[1], submitted that once the land has been given for development, it is deemed that the possession of the land is delivered and therefore, the stamp duty is required to be paid as if it is a complete sale. The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri P. Veera Reddy is that if the document is marked, the settled legal position is that subsequent objections with regard to marking of the document cannot be raised. The only point that arises for consideration is whether an objection with regard to marking of a document can be raised at a subsequent stage after marking the document? Admittedly, the respondent herein filed chief affidavit and along with that he filed agreement of sale, dated 8.6.2005, and it was marked by the Court when the matter was pending at Kurnool. Once a document is marked, no objection with regard to the mode or method of proof of document can be raised at a subsequent stage. It appears that the legal position has been well settled on this issue and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. But if the document is inadmissible in evidence an objection can be raised at any stage. Whether stamp duty is required or not and whether possession was delivered in pursuance of agreement or sale or not cannot be decided in interlocutory applications. Basing on proved facts, the matter has to be determined. Therefore, it is for the lower Court to consider the objections on appreciation of evidence at the time of final arguments in the suit. If the evidence reveals that possession was delivered the agreement of sale has to be impounded in accordance with law and then only it would be come admissible. But for the present, since it was observed that possession was not delivered and no stamp duty is required. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:10.2.2011 mrb [1] 2002 (3) ALD 321