(1.) Revision petitioner filed suit against the respondents inter alia for/declaration and consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of Rs.3,37,600/- paid by him under an agreement with the respondents, and filed petition seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaint schedule property, which was allowed by the trial Court. At the time of trial, if the suit, when the revision petitioner sought to mark the said agreement dated 10-10-2002, as an exhibit Counsel for the respondents objected to its marking on the ground that it is not properly stamped, and that objection was upheld by the order under revision.
(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the agreement dated 10-10-2002 sought to be marked in the suit was already marked as an exhibit during interlocutory stage, in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act (for short 'the Act') it should be deemed that it was already admitted in evidence, and so respondents cannot object to its marking at the time of trial of the suit. It is also his contention that in any event the said document may require to be stamped under Article 46A but not Article 46B of Schedule 1A to the Act.
(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the document dated 10-10-2002 sought to be marked by the revision petitioner in the suit is an agreement between the revision petitioner and respondents whereunder the 2nd respondent agreed to erect a building on the plaint schedule property which should be in complete confirmation with the plans, drawing and elevation and the material given in the specifications etc., and it is clear that revision petitioner was put in the possession of the plaint schedule property under the said agreement and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.