The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding in OS No.56 of 2021 on the file of Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent : SRI C VISHNU KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OI' IELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUI HAN RAO CIVIL REVISON PETITION NO.1 OII 2022 DATED: 16th DECEMBER,2021 Be [ween: M.Rajshekhar Reddv ... Revision Petitioner/Respondent,Defendant D. Narsimha Redclr And Respondent/ Pctitionerl Plainri f ORDER

7. This memorandum of Civil Revrsion Petitior , is frled under ArLicle 227 of the Constitution of India assaiiing r I dated 23. ll.2o2l passed in i.A.No.544 of 2021 ir : docket order O.S.No.56 of 2O2l by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad.

2. Petitioner is the respondent defendant, rcr;. ,ondent is the petitioner - plainl.iff in I.A.No.544 of 2O2l in O.S.No I 6 ol 2021.

3. 1 Respondenr - plaintiff has filed suit in O.S , 1o.55 of 2O2I against the petitioner - defendant for specilic I :rformance of contract of agreement of sale dated 22.t1.2O2O in r :spect of land admeasuring Ac.l-lO Yz gunts in survey No.97lI U situated at 2 BRMR,J CRP.No. I of 2022 Kesaram village, Chevalla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries.

3.2 Petitioner - defe ndant has flled his written statemenl in the suit and denied the execution of agreement of sale dated

22.11.2020.

4.1 Respondent - petitioner plaintiff has field 1.A.No.544 of 2O2 1 under Sections 37 and 38 of the lndian Stamp Act stating that he has hled suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner - respondent - defendant, the total sale consideration is Rs.88,37,500/ -, on the date of agreement he has paid Rs.70,00,0OO/-, the petitioner respondent - defendant agreed to survey the land within iive months from the date of agreement. also agreed to receive balance sale consideration and come forward to execute registered sale deed. As the agreement of sale is executed on u,hite paper, it requires stamp duty and penalty and prayed to send the agreement of sale dated 22.11.2020 to DRO, Moosapet, Hyderabad for collection of stamp duty.

4.2 Petitioner - respondent - defendan[ has hled his counter and contended that when there is no transaction between the parties, requesting the Court to send the document i.e., agreement of sale dated 22.11.2020 to DRO, Moosapet for impounding does not arise and prayed to dismiss the same. ^\ a. -, tsRMR,J CRP.No. I of 2022 that the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order and no interference is called for.

7. As the suit is filed by the respondent - petitioner - ptaintiff for specific performance of contract, the agreement of sale dated

22.11.2O2O is on a u,hite paper and the application came to be filed to send the document i.e., agreement of sale for collection of stamp duty and penalff, the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the contentions raised by the parties and observed in the order that "[t is settled iau, that if any document brought to the notice o[ the Court which is unstamped or insufhciently stamped same has to be impounded either suo-moto or on the application of the any of the parties to the proceedings and further held that whether the document is genuine or not whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief basing on the said document cannot be seen at this stage and it has to be impounded, therefore forwarded the document to the District Registrar for collection of stamp duty and penalt/

8. The reasoning of the learned Trial Court is in proper perspective and the petitioner - respondent - defendant has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. \ \ i 3 BRMR,.] Cl.'l'-No.1of2022

4.3 Learned Trial Court after hearing counsel c I rccord has allowed the application and sent the original d,):ument dated

22.i1.2O2O to Distrir:r Registr.rr for collection of s. rnp duty and penalfy.

5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner - respondr r t - clefendant submits that the Iearned trial Court lost sighr of rl e contentions raised in the written statement that he has nc t enlcred into agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule pr() )crt_\. and the document intended to be impounded is written on i il lrite paper which is highly unbelievablc, the suit file<t b1. tli,. r cspondent _ petilioner - plaintiff itself is misconceived an I entertaining document i.e., agreement of sale is illegal and rr r.lusLified and prayed to allo'*, the Civil Revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - petitit rer plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court uide its Lr.Di:;. \o.69212O21,, dated 27 .l1.2O2 t has sent the document i.e., agre :mcnt of sale dated 22.11.2020 to the District Registrar, Rangzr ) ir:dd1. pi51.i., for impounding the agreement of sale d_aLed 2i. I 1.202O. The District Registrar has collected the stamp duty and 1 enaltv on the said document and forwarded the same to the learrr.cl Trial Court on 15.12.2021 uide letter No. 18863/Court/2021. Co rnsel submits 5 I]IIMR,J CRP.No.lol2022

9. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There slr Lll be no order as to costs lnterim orclers if any stands vacated. pendirr r miscellaneous application/ s shall stand closed. SD/-C.DEEPIKA ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER To, Vikarabad

1. The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga - iddy District at 2 One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate [O ] lcl 3. One CC to SRI C VISHNU KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I I ADI(PSL bl& ) oQc o \ 1s6 $tt 11 C) * I esprl D :':::=1t HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 ORDER GRP.No.1 of 2022 DISMISSlNG THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6 \a {