HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4266 OF 2009 ORDER: Challenging the order dated 22.7.2009 passed in Memo filed in O.S.No.15 of 2007 by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, the petitioners -plaintiffs filed the present revision. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 4.11.2006. During the course of evidence, the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A1 by the Advocate- Commissioner, and on that, the defendant filed a memo stating that Ex.A1 is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, an opportunity may be provided to them for hearing on the said Exhibit. The learned V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, passed the following order: “Defendant’s counsel submitted that the said document Ex.A1 is insufficiently stamped and also requires registration, and stated that it is inadmissible and therefore, the Court feels unless the plaintiffs take steps for providing sufficient stamp duty and registration of document, it cannot be accepted in evidence.” The reading of the document basing on which the present suit is filed clearly discloses that it was executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper, and also discloses the date of agreement as 4.11.2006 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was received in advance out of sale consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- and the same was acknowledged by the defendant and agreed to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration and accordingly, the parties entered into agreement of sale on the said date. It is pertinent to note that under Item No.6-A of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899, which is applicable to the State of A.P., for the Agreement, which exceeds Rs.50,000/- the stamp duty required is Rs.100/-. It was not recited in the document in question that the possession was delivered as on the date of execution of the agreement, but the recital therein that on receipt of the entire sale consideration the property will be delivered itself shows that it is an agreement of sale. The learned Additional District Judge without making an endeavour to look into the aspect as to whether the objection raised by the defendant is sustainable or not, simply accepted the objection raised by the Counsel and directed the plaintiffs to take steps for providing sufficient stamp duty. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order under revision is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:19th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4266 OF 2009 19.8.2011 Nn