Order VII Rule 14, Order XII Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908= The defendant in the said suit fled I.A.No.653 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 14, Order XII Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 praying to admit the sale deeds and other unregistered documents of sale for collateral purpose and to mark the same. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a bar for admitting those documents.= in view of the bar Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which provides that any document cannot be received as evidence for any other purpose, unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid.


CRP 941 / 2013

CRPSR 5248 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
K. S.BABU @ SEETHAKAYALA BABU  VSSADHIKA BASHA & 7 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : SIDDHIVARDHANARESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  CHITTOOR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.941 of 2013

O R D E R:-


This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 09.10.2012, passed in I.A.No.653 of 2012 in O.S.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2.      The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 2006.  For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court

3.      The defendant in the said suit fled I.A.No.653 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 14, Order XII Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 praying to admit the sale deeds and other unregistered documents of sale for collateral purpose and to mark the same.  The said petition was dismissed on the ground that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a bar for admitting those documents. Challenging the same, the present application is filed. 

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the proviso of Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908, the document can be used for collateral purpose.  But the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the bar Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which provides that any document cannot be received as evidence for any other purpose, unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid.  Therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court and the Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits. 

5.      Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.   However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from presenting those documents before the Court below for marking after paying necessary stamp duty and penalty.  No costs.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the C.R.P. shall stand closed.


______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

15th March 2013
sr/pn

                        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.941 of 2013

 

 



Dated:15.03.2013





sr/pn

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515