The High Court · 2025

M/s.Dominos Pizza lndia Ltd., (now known as Jubilant Food Works Ltd ) Rep bv its Zonal l\4anaqer Mr. B. Sudheer, Sio. B. Krishna, aged 34 years, R?o.H.No.6-51, Pet Easheerabad, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Aouruoa Construction Pvt. Ltd, a company under the Companies Act'1956 Its reo'd office at 7 -1-222. Dharam Kaiam'Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, rep' by its"Directors Sri K. Anil Reddy, S/o.K.L.Reddy, Age 49 yrs, Rio.29lA, MLA Cblony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Itilanish Agarwal, S/o. Narendra Kumar Agarwal, Age 53 yrs, R/o Plot No.'1296, Road No 63, 2, Hyderabad. H It E ::i: 4 5 Rajinish Agarwal, S/o. Narendra Kumar Agarwal, I r e' 49 yrs, R/o.Plot No.1296, Road No.63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Vah fvlagna Retail Private Limited, a company Regd. t r cler the Companies Act 1956, its regd. Office at No 7-C, Nlargadars i 3olony, Kothapet, Hyd erabad-500060, rep. by [t4r. Sriram Kakkera ...Respondents/ ):fendants- 10 to 13 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that jn the r i c umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou t rnay be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in OS No 548 of 2015 on the fi ( lf the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar penr ir3 disposal of the present CRP Gounsel for the Petitioner(s): M/s. L SOUMYA REDDY, At r c,cate Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER t-. IN TIIE HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANCANA AT ITYDERABA.D THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CTVIL REVISIO N PETITION N0.2424 0F 2023 DATED THE 2l{D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: T.Shyam Kumar and others And . Petitioners M/s.Domino's Pizza lndia Ltd. and others ORDER: .. Respondents

1. This Civil Revision petition is hled under Article 222 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated, 29.L 1.2022 passed in I.A.No.29O of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 20I,5, by the learned I Additional Distrrct Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Petitioners herein are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9, respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1-plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.2 to S-defendant Nos. 10 to 13 in I.A.No.29O of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015.

3. Petitioners have hled I.A.No.29O of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to de-exhibit Ex.A-2 dated 19.06.2008 which is captioned as "Shop in Shop Agreement,,. ,',/\ \ t z BRMR,J 11P.No.2424 of 2Q23

4. 1 Afhdavit is sworn by Smt.K. Annapurna retitioner No.8 herein) stating that respondent No. 1-plaintiff i id a suit for perpetual injunction and damages against tht: )3titioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, who are the defendar s in the suit, in respect of property i.e., Ground Floor, Shop No. r1t Vah Magna Super Centre, No.7-C, Margadarsi Colony, Kothr )et, Hyderabad admeasuring approximately 1 127 Sq. ft. carpet a - rzr with specific boundaries.

4.2 Respondent No. l-plaintiff has obtained the ; e mises as sub- tenant from M/ s.Vah Magna Retail Private Limit, ', , who was the principal-tenant, and {iled a document captioned r ,, 'Shop in Shop Agreement' dated i9.06.2OO8 claiming that th r suit schedule property was let out for a period of 15 years 1' ,rn O1.07.2008. Petitioners herein, who are the defendant Nos. I : 9, filed their written statement contending that the lease L I eement dated

19.06.2008 which was engrossed on a stamp p i ,t:r of Rs.100/- requires stamp duty of 5% on three times of avert I e annual rental vaiue or on 5%o of market value of the property whic r :'rer is higher.

4.3 During the evidence of respondent No. 1-; .zrintiff, he got marked Exs.A-1 to A-56. At the time of marking th: clocuments, the petitioners' counsel was held up in other Court anr appeared bpfore '!'t I f, , BRMR,J CRP.No.2424 of 2023 the Court after conclusion of marking of the documents and by that time document dated 19.06.200g was already marked as Ex.A2, which is un-stamped and un-registered document, which cannot be received as evidence and prayed to de_exhibit the same. 5, Respondent No. 1-plaintiff petitioners-defendant Nos.l to admission of 'Shop in Shop Agreement, frled coun[er contending that 9 failed to take objection for at appropriate time, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. Objection of marking a documen t should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once document is marked, it cannot be objected. Failure to raise a prompt and dmely objection amounts to waiver of the necessitSr for insisting on formal proof of a document. Marking of a document is different from proving of the document. The said document can be relied upon for collateral purpose and prayed to dismiss the same

6. The iearned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.29O of 2022 holding that *Since petitioner did not raise objection for admissibilit5r of the document on the ground of insufficient stamp duty when it was tendered 1n evidence on 19.12.2O79 and marked as Ex.A-2 in the presence of the \*- t; 4 BRMR,J lRP.No.2424 of 2023 counsel for the plaintiff, who sought time, for crc -. ;-examining the rvitness, as can be seen from the depositron and d,. l:et proceedings of the said date. The petitioners cannot raise thr: I a id objection at this stage, after more than two years of chief : I lmination and marking of the said document". The learned trial _ rurt has placed reliance on Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatl-r I end othersr.

7.L Learned counsel for the petitioners submits I zLt Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 is for a pe r cd of 15 years which is engross : I on stamp of commencing from O 1.07.2008, Rs. 1 00/ - requires stamp duty of 5%o on three of a verage I IleS annual rental value or on Syo of market value rl the property whichever is higher.

7.2 Learned trial Court has accepted the cor .. petitioners that Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement i; :ntions of the a compulsorily registerable document under the provisions of Se: ion 1 7A of the Registration Act, 1908, the duration of the iease is I ,r' 15 years and the same cannot be looked into even for collateral p r pose under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act 19O8, however merely on the ground that the counsel did not raise r ny objection at the time of marking of document dismissed the a1 ,1 lication. Ex.A2 't'tr'Nu1sc1tz+olzozz r' 5 BRMR,J CRP.No.2424 of 2023 has to be registered within four months from the date of its execution i.e., 19.06.2008. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied upon the decision in the case of A.P. Laly v. Gurram Rama Rao2 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8, Notice got issued [o respondent No. 1 in the C.R.p. is served but none appeared for him.

9. It is apt to refer Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 which reads as under: "3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents: The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.' 1(). Respondent No. i -plaintiff has hled suit for perpetuai injunction restraining the defendant Nos- 1 to 12 therein (petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 9 and respondent No.2 to S-defendant Nos.10 to 13 herein) from causing any sort of interference, obstruction to the ingress and egress of the plaint schedule property and consequently the defendants may be directed to restore the electricity and water connection which they il1egal1y disconnected on 01.09.2010 and for damages for an amount of Rs.2,0O,OO0/- towards loss of lusingss, to , 2017 S5 C OrrLine Hyd 327 ) 6 BRMR,J I FP.No.2424 of 2023 restore the main wall which was dernolished on 15.09.20 f O by granting mandatory injunction.

11. Petitioners, who are defendant Nos.l to 9 I z-ve filed their wriLten statement and they stated in paragrapl llo.2 that the duration of the alleged lease agreement dated 19.0; !lOO8 is for 15 years from O1.07.2OO8. The said lease agre l r.ent requires compulsory registration, as such, the same is i r,ldmissible in evidence. The alleged lease agreement is engrossr:r cn a stamp of Rs,I OO/- stamp paper whereas it requires stamp dut r of 5olo on three times of average annual rental value or on 5%o of ma - r:t value of the property whichever is higher. Hence, the alleged le:: : agreement is insufhciently stamped requires to be impounded '1i11 then, the document cannot be admitted and it cannot be 1oo < :,1 into for any purpose. l2.L Ex.-A2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06 i JO8 paragraph No.2(b) of page No.3 goes to show that "the grant of i L.d Premises to DOMINO'S by VAN MAGNA for the purpose o1 : perating and managing "Domino's Pizza Store" shall be initially f< r ir period of 15 (fifteen) years (defined hereinafter as "Term"), cornr l :ncing from 1st day of July 2OO8 expiring by efflux of time on 30ft di r rf June 2023. Thereafter the Term of the Agreement may be rer:red/extended a: 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.2424 of 2023 further from time to time as may be mutually agreed between the Parties in this respect".

12.2 Paragraph No.16 of page No.11 speaks about Registration. 'REGISTRATION: This Agreement shall be duly stamped and registered within the prescribed time period under the Indian Registration Act 1908. The stamping & registration cost of this Agreement shall be borne by DOMINO,S solely.,,

13. In A.P. Laly2 the High Court observed that .,...The Court has got right to de-exhibit a document when its attention was drawn as to the inadmissibility of the document, as it has got duty to decide the admissibilify of a document ald eschew irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. The Code of Civil Procedure deals with the procedure in dealing with the suits, whereas the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act deal u,ith the provisions for collection of proper stamp dut5r on the documents. When a document which was not properly stamped was admitted in evidence and when the Courts attention was drawn, the objection of a party under Section 36 of the Act pales into insignilicance and the duty of the Court comes to the forefront to decide with regard to admissibilit5r of such a document. It is for the Court to decide whether a particular 8 BRMR,J \ F.P.No.2424 of 2023 document is admissible or not. If it is inadmissible t can de-exhibit such a document".

14. The learned trial Court, observed at paragrr r r No.10 that "The document-Ex.A2 was stamped on a stam: paper worth Rs.1OO/- (Rupees One hundred only). Though tlr document is styled as "Shop in Shop Agreement", contents of i e same rvould reveal that it is a sub-lease agreement between the I a intiff and the defendant No. 1 3. lt is an unregistered lease r , e d. The said document requires registration. The piaintiff is not , ,: 1y seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the petitionersT r :lendants, but also seeking the relief of damages. It is a compuls c :7 registerabie document as the duration of the said lease is for a p :riod of fifteen years under Section i7A of the Registration Act, ( ()8. The said document cannot be admitted in evidence as it is I r unregistered document. trven it cannot be looked into even for cc I rteral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 cjf the Registration \ :t., 1908, since the entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon the s r.d document- Ex.A-2 only''.

15. Learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the : tnclusion that Ex.A-2 is compulsorily registerable document as th( (:ase penod is for a period of 15 years but surprisingly, taken a U- -'r:-n and stated "2 J -24 9 BRMR,J CRP.No.2424 of 2023 that when once a document is marked, a party cannot object for demarking of the same.

16. Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil procedure states that the Court may at any stage ol the suit reject any documenr \\,hich is inadmissible. t7.l In Sirikonda Madhava Raol, it was unregistered sale deed (Ex.A1) which is de-exhibited by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court obserwed ,,that objectron as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to be raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties or even the Court to re-examine the order on issue. We have not commented or examined the question of effect of purported non-registration of the sale deed in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registratiion Act, 1908. These questions and issues are left open to be decided by the trial Court".

17.2 Petitioners have taken objection in the written statement that lease agreement (Ex.A2) dated 19.O6.2OO8 is in admissible in evidence. The facts in the above decision are distinguishable from the facts of the present case on hand, \. 10 BRMR,J I F P .No .2424 at 2023 f

18. Ex.A-2 clearly states at paragraph No. 16 tha Jre Agreement shall be duly stamped and registered within the : -cscribed time period under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Ad r i.tedly, Ex.A-2 is engrossed on Rs.100/- stamp paper, when there ir :.ear Clause in Ex.A 2 that the same has to be registered within , Lr: time frame. But, the learned trial Court has lost sight of the sam:

19. Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19 ( 5.2008 is in- sufficiently stamped document and lt is a compuls( r ly registerable document. Learned trial Court has not properly r rcreciated the contentions of the parties and wrongly came to a cor c rrsion that the petilioners have not made out any case.

20. In view of the decision of the High Court ; ated supra at paragraph No. 13, Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Ag r e ment dated

19.06.2008 is a compulsory registerable documen and the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, same i; liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

21. Civil Revision Petition is aliowed and the orde r passed by the learned I Additionat District Judge, Ranga Re(.r v District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.29O of 2022 in O.S.No.548 r f 2Ot5 dated

29.11.2022, is set aside. Consequently, the petiti ) r hled by the petitioners is allowed without costs. _,zz l1 BRMR,J CRP.No.2424 of 2023 Inte rim order/ s if any shall s[and vacated. Miscellaneous petition/ s shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// 'i{;E'1R}-S.[t?HXA ,1,lv SECTION OFFICER To, The I Additional District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar One CC to M/s L SOUX/YA REDDY' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPtes , I

1. 2 3 M R(]/PSI HIGH COURT DATED: 0211212025 ORDER CRP.No.2424 of 2023 THi ( oR /l ;-) ,- r + Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is I llowed. \ )L q ?,