The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci i L mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pteased to vacate the lnterim order dated 2811112024 passed in CRp No i t2212024 Responder ts/petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the ci ( L mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court r r ry be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C. O. S. No. 3/201f t c n the fite of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of commerc a Disputes, R. R. District at L. B. Nagar, pending disposal of the subiect C. R p Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: KARRI MURALI KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACIIAR,TA THE HoN,BLE JUSTTCITADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CTVIL R.EVISION PETITION No.3722 OF 2o24 Sri Lakesh Sarghi, learned counsel for the revisron pctitioners Sri Karri l,lurali Krishna, learned counsel for rhc respondenL. ORDER: (per Hon,bte.rusrcc Moushunrt Bhatracharya)

1. This Civil Revisiorr petition (,CRp,l arises out of an Order dated 23.O8.2024 in C.O.S.No.3 ot 20 18 (.Commercial SuitJ passd by thc learned Speciai Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Rcddy District ("lrial CourtJ. Thc petitioners before this court rvere the deiencia,ts before the Trial Court in the said Commercial Suit frled by rhe respondent/plaintiff for reco'u,cr-,,- ot- a sum of money towar{s liquidated darnages and other claims.

2. The respondent/ plain iill is rhe onner and lantllord wirile the petitioner No. I /dclcndanr No. I is the lessee to the suit schedule property (cold storage building, plant and machinery) who cntered into a Lease Agreement dated I 5.06.20 1 1 anci :r Su ppteracnrarJ,. Agrcement dated 16.06.2O1 I in pursuance [hcreol. The defendant No.2 is the 2 MB) & GPK,] Crp_3722 2024 Managing Director of the defendalt No. I u,hi I : the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the Directors

3. Learned counsel appearlng petitioners/defendants submits that the l e.titioners had already vacated the suit schedule property bu- the respondent had refrained from taking possession thereall:- and that the Commercial Suit had been hled on account of the alleged extensive damage caused by the petitioners/cir l:ndants to the suit schedule propert5r as well as to recove - ,he arrears of rent, water and electricity charges. The impr r lecd order n,as passed with respect to the objections ra-ised bv the petitioners/ defendants regarding the marl . r Lg of certain documents relied upon by the respondent.

4. Learned counsel appea-ring for the pet t oners submits that the challenge in the present CRP is r : itricted to the decision of the Trial Court rejecting the o I (.ctions oi the petitioners while holding that the Supplemer. €iry Agreement executed between the parties on 16.06.2O I 1 ,l )3s not require comp,ulsory registration under section 17 ol " re Registration M8,J & GPK,.I Crp_3722_2024 Act, 19O8 (prescribing compulsory registration for leases) or payment as per Article 3l of Schedule I_A to The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (specifying the rates of stamp duty on leases) and that the stamp duty of Rs.lOO/_ paid thereto is suilicient for the said document.

5. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants who submits that the Trial C_ourt erred in holding that the Supplementarl, Agreement dated 16.06.2011 is not a separate or an independent lease deed, but is consequential to the main Lease Agreement . dated 15.06.2011 thereby, rendering the sramp duty of Rs. IOO/_ paid in that regard to be sufllcient. 6 Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff is present.

7. The dispute before us is limited to the issue of whether the Supplementaq/ Agreement dated 16.06.2011 should be seen as a separate and indcpcndent document to the main Lease Agreement dated 15.06.2011. 4 MB) & GPK,I Crp_3722_2024

8. The petitioners rely ttpon Harpreet Sitt'1 t Chhabra Vs' Mrs. Suneet Kaur Sahneyl wherein it was hr: :. that despite the prohibition contained in section 8 of T I r: Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the supervisory jurisdicti:: of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of I .rdia cannot be curtailed. However, the exercise of the said jrt isdiction must depend upon the facts of each case and rl ly be invoked where the circumstances so warrant. I . Whereas the respondent places relii r rle upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prr r ;ad TechnoLogg Park (P) Ltd. V. Sub-RegistraP which pe r ,,rined to the execulion of a supplementar5r agreement pur i rant to a leasc cum sale agreement whereby the name as r,l't I as the nature of business of the lessee company was alte r :d. The issue there u,as u,hether this supplementar5l agre : rrent could be construed as a lease deed so as to attract t re pa1-mcnt ol stamp duty under Article 5(d) of the Sr l L,:dule to Tl-re Karnataka Starnp Act, 1957. It was noted tha : the change of ' zota (sIr..r os r (o. a.) 2 (2006\ t scc 473 , ) MB,J & GPK,J Crp_j722_2024 the name of the company or the mere change of user from carrying on one business to another would not mean that a fresh transaction had taken place. The Supreme Court held that since there has been no transfer of leasehold interest, the supplementar5r agreement is not a lease deed and cannot be subjected to stamp duty under the said provision Applying the said principle to the present case, since the Supplementary Agreement datcd 16.06.2011 only relates to thc payment of goodwill arrd does not alter or create any new leasehold rights, it is not a compulsorily registerable document and the stamp duty of Rs. I OOi - thereon is sulficient. Ttris Court finds merit in and agrees s,ith the contention of the respondent/plaintiff on this aspect. lO. We accordingly hold that the Supplementary Agreement cannot be treated as a separatc or independent instrument rr,hich would require an indcpendeat assessment of stamp duty. 6 MB,J & GPK,J Crp_3722_2O24 I 1. In any event, the present CRP ari:;, l; out of al interlocutory order passed by the Trial I ourt in the Commercial Suit. Although section 8 of Tt r: Commercial Courts Act, 20 15, contains a bar against err -r:rtaining civil revision applications or petitions against ar. in terlocutory order of a Commercial C)ourt, we a-re also a v are of scvcral decisions where Courts have held that this rar would not operate against a Civil Revision Petition hle,l under Articlc 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, while . ve do not have an1' objcction to the maintainability of the CRI, it is reitcratcd that rl,c d<-r not find any error in the impugn r c[ order dated 23 .O8.2O24 to thc extent of the grievance e rrged bv the pctitioners / defendants in the present ( l<P as thc Supplementan' Agreemcnt cannot be seen as .: -r independent instrument lr,arranting a separate assessmen t of the stamp dutr'.

12. In an.v errent, the petitioners cal continu,: (iommercial Suit tiled b1, the respondent whi bcfore fie Trial Court. t o contest thc : e is pending i. 7 MB,] & GPK,J Crp_3/21_2024

13. C.R.P.No.3722 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed along u,ith all connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/C.OEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. RAKESH SANGHI Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSL S HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 ORDER CRP.No.3722 o12024 i ?\ t * L) DISMISSING THE CRP a 0 e)