PURINI KRISHNAIAH Vs. NUVVURU VENKATA RAMANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are interrelated to each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S. No.30 of 1999, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 9-2-1995. The trial of the suit commenced, and the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A-1. At a large stage, the petitioner came forward with a plea that in continuation of Ex.A-1; another agreement dated 18-10-1995, was executed by the respondent, slightly enhancing the consideration. He sought to introduce the same into the suit. At the request of the petitioner, the Trial Court sent that document, for impounding, to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nellore. It is stated that the RDO determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty, payable thereon at Rs.24,649/- and Rs.98,596/- respectively. Feeling aggrieved by this determination, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14277 of 2001. The same is pending before this Court.

(3.) At a subsequent stage, the petitioner approached the RDO, with an application, stating that earlier order was passed without hearing him, and that the matter be determined afresh. It is represented that the RDO passed an order dated 23-2-2004, taking the view that the document, dated 18-10-1995, does not require any further stamp duty, since Ex.A-1 was already properly stamped. On the strength of this order, the petitioner filed I.A. No.440 of 2004, under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen the evidence, and LA. No.441 of 2004 to recall PW.1, for being examined afresh. The Trial Court rejected the applications, through its orders dated 27- 7-2004. Hence, these two revisions.