Y PEDA VENKAYYA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred against an endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, dated 2-3-1981, informing the petitioner that he is not competent to revise the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, who had impounded certain documents produced by the petitioner hi a suit, and which were sent to the R. D. O. The writ petition arises in the following circumstances:--

(2.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O. Section No. 17 of 1979, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. While P.W.2 was being examined on his behalf, the petitioner (plaintiff) wanted to have three documents admitted in evidence through P. W. 2. Immediately thereupon, an objection was raised by the defendants about the admissibility of the documents under the provisions of the Stamp Act. It appears that the Court, thereupon, sent the original documents to the Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur), for impounding the same. The R. D. O., however, returned the documents to the Court stating that, according to law, the documents have to be impounded first by the Court before which they are produced and then sent to the Collector and that, therefore, the documents may be impounded fed first and then sent to him. Accordingly, the Court impounded the documents and determined the stamp duty and penalty payable thereon. The petitioner (plaintiff), instead of paying the duty and penalty and getting the documents admitted in evidence, filed a petition stating that the documents may be sent to the Collector, under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. The original documents were, accordingly, sent to the Collector (R. D. O.). Before the R. D. O., the petitioner applied for ascertainment of the stamp duty and penalty leviable thereon. It is on that application that the 1st respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur) made the impugned endorsement.

(3.) Mr. A. L. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the view taken by the 1st respondent in the impugned Memo is not sustainable in law. And I am inclined to agree with him. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act for this purpose.