IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2474 of 2010 Between: Smt. R. Suhasini .. Petitioner AND M. Namdev .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2474 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 26.04.2010, in I.A.No.148 of 2010 in R.C.No.166 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondent, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘Stamp Act’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), to send the Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984, for impounding to the District Registrar, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, was allowed. 2. The petitioner herein filed R.C.No.166 of 2007 against the respondent herein for eviction. The respondent filed counter mentioning that he purchased the property under an Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984. The matter was posted for the purpose of marking the documents. Previously, the petitioner filed I.A.No.459 of 2009 in the said Rent Control Case for receiving of the documents. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court in so far as receipt of Agreement of Sale is concerned, on the ground that the Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984, is not properly stamped. The respondent filed C.R.P.No.982 of 2010 before this Court challenging the said order. That revision was dismissed. Again, the respondent has filed I.A.No.148 of 2010 in R.C.No.166 of 2007 to send the Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984, for impounding to the District Registrar, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. That petition was allowed vide the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since a petition in I.A.No.459 of 2009 in R.C.No.166 of 2007 was already filed to receive that document, the said petition was dismissed in so far as receipt of Agreement is concerned on the ground that the Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984, was not properly stamped, this revision is not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Agreement of Sale, dated 14.05.1984, was impounded by the District Registrar, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, by collecting the stamp duty and penalty, and therefore, nothing survives in this revision. 5. It is not in dispute that on the earlier occasion, the petition in I.A.No.459 of 2009 in R.C.No.166 of 2007 was filed to receive the documents. On that day, it seems that the other documents were ordered to be received, but the present document sought to be impounded was not received for the simple reason that the document requires stamp duty and penalty. If the earlier order is made on merits refusing to receive the document, then the respondent is precluded from filing a similar application. Necessary stamp duty has not paid, the Court on earlier occasion refused to receive the document. That order is not a bar for filing the present application. Thereafter, the present petition is filed to impound the document. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court the document in question is an ‘instrument’ defined in Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act. Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person unless such instrument is duly stamped. Admittedly, stamp duty and penalty have not been paid on the document in question. Such is the case, stamp duty and penalty are required to be paid on the said document. Therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition. The order needs no interference by this Court. However, the issue with regard to the relevancy and admissibility of the document can be raised by the petitioner before the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the entire evidence was completed, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of R.C.No.166 of 2007 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 10th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2474 of 2010 Date: 10th March, 2011 KL