AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Krishna Mohan, J
This revision petition arises against the order in O.S.No.64 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta dated 12.07.2019.
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff initiated action against the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.64 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet for grant of relief of specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 03.03.2000, in the alternative for grant of a decree for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and grant of permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. While so, during the course of trial, at the time of marking the documents i.e., document No.1 dated 05.05.2000 and document No.2 dated 03.09.2000, the respondents’/defendants’ counsel raised an objection stating that those two documents are not admissible in evidence upon which the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants submitted their arguments before the trial court and as such the order under challenge dated 12.07.2019 came to be passed.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the document No.2 dated 03.09.2000 is only a document reiterating the past transaction and neither rights have been created nor extinguished under it. Hence, it is admissible without any stamp duty and penalty. Similarly, the document No.1 dated 05.05.2000 is only a receipt showing the proof of payments of Rs.2,50,000/- on 03.03.2000 and Rs.1,67,500/-under the agreement of sale dated 03.03.2000 and as such it is admissible and no stamp duty and penalty is required as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants contend that document No.1 dated 05.05.2000 is a receipt which discloses that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 gave a receipt to the petitioner/plaintiff stating that as per the agreement of sale dated 03.03.2000 he received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff on 03.03.2000 and he also received an amount of Rs.1,67,500/- in total a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- for which he gave a receipt to that effect to the petitioner/plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. Similarly document No.2 dated 03.09.2000 discloses the specific recital of delivery of possession in the past. Hence, it shall be treated as an agreement of sale with delivery of possession. Hence, these two documents are liable to be stamped under the explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act.
However, the trial court upon consideration of the rival contentions came to a conclusion that the above said two documents require payment of stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the plaintiff was directed to pay requisite stamp duty and penalty on the said two documents vide order dated 12.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision.
Since the trial has already been commenced and it is at the stage of marking of the documents, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the above said documents shall be allowed to be marked subject to the objections of the other side. However, upon completion of the trial and advancement of arguments, the trial court shall consider this issue also along with the other issues in the suit at the time of final disposal of the suit on its own merits without there being any influence of the order under challenge dated 12.07.2019.
Accordingly, the order of the court below dated 12.07.2019 is set aside with the above said directions and observations. Since it is an old suit, the priority should be given for an early disposal of the suit for which both the parties shall cooperate with the trial court. The suit shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.