Bandi Dhana Lakshmi and Another vs Chalamala Satyanarayana

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 9-2-2001 passed in E.A. No. 688 of 2000 in E.P. No. 103 of 1996 in O.S. No. 126 of 1994 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada whereby the learned Judge dismissed the said E.A. No. 688 of 2000 filed by the petitioners u/s 151 CPC and refused to accept the security bond.

The impugned order reads as follows:

"In view of the order of High Court of A.P. in C.R.P. No. 371/99, dated 28-8-2000 the petitioners shall have a further period of one month from 28-8-2000 for furnishing security bond in this Court. But the petitioners did not furnish security bond duly executed and with required stamp in accordance with the Article 57 read with Article 15 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The alleged security bond of Bondada Venn Gopala Rao and Bondada Prabhavathi and the alleged security bond of Bandi Dhana Lakshmi (first petitioner herein) dated 27-9-2000 are not at all security bonds properly stamped and executed by them. Thus I have come to conclusion that the petitioners have failed to furnish the security bond in accordance with the order passed by High Court of A.P. in C.R.P. No. 371/99, dated 28-8-2000".

It is apparent from the impugned order that the Junior Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that Article 57 read with Article 15 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the bond furnished by the petitioners in compliance of the order passed in C.R.P. No. 371 of 1999 is required to be stamped under Article 14(2) of Schedule II of the A.P. Court Fees Act. He placed reliance upon the decision of Madras High Court in Kalapati Peda Pitchamma and Another Vs. Chiruvella Pedamuneyya minor by next friend Subbalakshmamma and Another, It has been held in the cited decision that the security bond, which is required to be stamped in compliance of the order of the Court comes within the ambit of Article 6 Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and not under the Stamp Act. The proposition of law is well settled in the cited decision that it is only the Court Fees Act that applies and not the Stamp Act with regard to the security bond that is required to be stamped in compliance of the order of the Court. This proposition of law is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 9-2-2001 passed in E.A. No.688 of 2000 in EP No. 103 of 1996 in OS No. 126 of 1994 and consequently the EA No.688 of 2000 stands restored to file. No costs.