M VENKATA RAO Vs. M SHESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order, dated 27. 6. 2008, passed in IA No. 93 of 2008 in OS No. 67 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Mahabubabad, Warangal District.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. l herein filed the afore-said suit against petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 6, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. When the suit was coming up for defendants' evidence, the present Ia has been filed by the defendants, stating that through an agreement of sale dated 13. 4. 1988, the 1st defendant has got purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and that the said document is required to be impounded by the Competent Authority for collecting required stamp duty and penalty, and therefore they requested to send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, for impounding. The 1st respondent/plaintiff resisted the petition by filing a counter, wherein it is stated that the defendants want to send a photocopy of the document for impounding, but not the original document, and the same cannot be permitted, and that only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the present petition has been filed after ten years of institution of the suit. The Court below, while observing that the document, which is required to be sent for impounding, is a photocopy and the original document is not produced before the Court, relied upon the decisions of this Court, wherein it is held that photocopy of a document is not an instrument and cannot be impounded and assessed to stamp duty and even if such document is impounded by Competent Authority under Stamp Act, it need not necessarily be understood as legally got validated for the purpose of admissibility of the same in evidence, and dismissed the petition, by the impugned order dated 27. 6. 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff reiterated the stand taken by the 1st respondent/plaintiff before the Court below and supported the impugned order.