THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.1301 of 2010 Date:9.4.2010 Between: Nandyala Koti Reddy, Nalgonda District. Petitioner. And Bheemavarapu Rama Krishna, Nalgonda District and another. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.1301 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 8.2.2010 passed in I.A.No.506 of 2009 in O.S.No.314 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-D2 to send the original agreement of sale dated 5.1.1994 to the District Registrar for impounding. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.2 and whereas the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.314 of 2005. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner-D2 claimed that he purchased the property under an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1994 from the plaintiff. The petitioner-D2 filed petition being I.A No.264 of 2007 to send the original agreement of sale dated 5.1.1994 executed by the plaintiff to the District Registrar, Nalgonda for impounding and the said petition came to be allowed. The District Registrar sent two notices to the petitioner-D2 to appear before him for enquiry with regard to impounding of the document. There being no response from the petitioner-D2, the District Registrar returned the document without impounding to the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. Thereupon, the petitioner filed another petition being I.A.No.506 of 2009 to send the agreement of sale dated 5.1.1994 to the District Registrar, Nalgonda for impounding. The petitioner-D2 pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he did not receive notices from the District Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion for him to appear before the District Registrar, Nalgonda. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-D2 having failed to avail the opportunity of appearing before the District Registrar when the document was sent for impounding cannot be permitted to file application seeking selfsame relief. With this finding, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the 2nd defendant by order dated 8.2.2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “It is admitted fact that earlier this Court sent the original agreement of sale for collection of stamp duty and penalty to the District Collector, Nalgonda on the application of the petitioner herein. The same was returned by the District Collector (District Registrar), Nalgonda alleging that two notices were issued to the concerned parties on 12.2.2009 and 19.6.2009 and there was no response from the parties and, therefore, the document was returned without colleting the stamp duty and penalty. No reason whatsoever is given by the petitioner to disbelieve the said letter addressed by the District Registrar showing that two notices were given to the petitioner for the purpose of collecting the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale. Except a bald denial of the issuance of the said notices, petitioner did not give any reasons to show that the said notices were not, in fact, received by him. Thus, the petitioner has not chosen to appear before the District registrar in response to the notices given by him and pay the required stamp duty and penalty. In fact, this Court has issued reminder on 24.1.2009 and also on 10.11.2009 to the District Registrar, Nalgonda for return of the documents after collecting the stamp duty and penalty. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of payment of stamp duty and penalty before the District Registrar in spite of receipt of notices. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to send the document again to the District Collector for the self same purpose because such an opportunity was already given to the petitioner but he did not avail the same. The suit is of the year 2005. In fact, much time was consumed for sending the document earlier to the District Collector for collection of stamp duty and penalty and as already stated above, the said document was returned as it is without any progress. Keeping all these facts into consideration, this Court finds no reason to allow the present petition for the self same relief and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive notices allegedly sent by the District Registrar on 12.2.2009 and 19.6.2009 and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner-D2 in not responding the said notices. The same plea was advanced by the petitioner –D2 before the trial Court. The trial Court on perusal of the material brought on record did not find any substance in the plea advanced by the petitioner-D2. It is explicit from the order impugned in the revision that the petitioner did not respond to the letters addressed by the District Registrar to appear before him for enquiry on the aspect of impounding the agreement of sale. Such is the situation, I do not see any merit in the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner –D2 that the petitioner did not receive notices addressed to him on 12.2.2009 and 19.6.2009 by the District Registrar, Nalgonda. Hence the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:9.4.2010 mrb