SUPREME MUSIC Vs. MANILAL G PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed O.S. No. 1776 of 2001, against the respondents, in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for specific performance of an agreement, dated 15-1-2001. The trial of the suit commenced. Along with an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner filed the agreement, dated 15-1-2001. On entertaining a doubt, as to its admissibility, on account of its not being properly stamped, the petitioner filed I. A. No.681 of 2002, under Section 151 C.P.C., requesting the court to record a finding, as to the admissibility of that document, with reference to the sufficiency of stamp duty. Respondents 11 and 12 contested the matter. The trial Court passed a reasoned order dated 26-2-2003, in that I.A. directing that the document is marked as Ex.A-1, subject to the objection as to the stamp duty. The Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO) of that court, was directed to assess the stamp duty and penalty payable on the document. The petitioner was given an option, either to pay the stamp duty and penalty that may be determined by the Court, or to get the document impounded, by the revenue authorities.

(2.) At a subsequent stage, the petitioner requested the court to return the document, on the ground that it wants to get it impounded, by the revenue authorities. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Chintalapudi Annapurnamma v. Andukuri Punnayya Sastry the trial court passed an order, dated 11-3-2003, holding that once the document was admitted in evidence, it was impermissible for the petitioner to take it back, or to get it impounded, through the revenue authorities. The same is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document cannot be said to have been admitted or received in evidence as yet, since it was dependant upon payment of stamp duty, that may be determined by the CMO. He submits that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act") gives an option, to a person relying upon an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document, to pay the deficit stamp duty, as may be determined by the court itself, under Section 35, or to get it impounded, under Section 33 of the Act, through the revenue authorities. He contends that the trial court itself recognized such an option, when it passed the order in I .A. No. 681 of 2002, and that it had virtually reviewed its own order by refusing to return the document. He submits thatthejudgment of this Court in Chintalapudi Annapurnamma'scase did not prohibit such options.