Allowed

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society v. G.Satyanarayana

Telangana HC11 Jul 2011CRP/1430/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an endorsement directing the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty made during the suit numbering stage without notice. The court held such payment questions arise only upon evidence admission and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement setting aside; suit to be disposed of expeditiously within four months.

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society Vs G.Satyanarayana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

C.R.P.No.1430 of 2010

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This civil revision petition is directed against the endorsement dated 09-11-2005 made in SR No.18007 of 2010 directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,96,775/- and penalty of Rs.19,67,750/-, totaling to Rs.21,674,525/- on the agreement of sale dated 3-10-2002.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would submit that at the time of numbering the suit itself, the office took an objection directing the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty as the question of such payment arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence. He would further submit that the endorsement on the document directing the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty is made without notice to the plaintiff and certified copy of the same was applied after coming to know the same. The trial Court returned the copy application on the ground that copy of unmarked document cannot be furnished.

¶7

It is not disputed that the endorsement directing the

¶8

plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty was made on 9- 11-2005 i.e., at the time of numbering the suit itself. It is considered that the question of payment of stamp duty and penalty would arise only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence and an objection is taken regarding its admissibility on the ground of want of stamp duty and penalty. In the present case no such adjudication has so far been made regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the document.

¶9

In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned endorsement directing the plaintiff to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,96,775/- and penalty of Rs.19,67,750/-, totalling Rs.21,64,525/- is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is however open to the respondents-defendants to raise an objection regarding the admissibility of the document on the ground of want of stamp duty and penalty as and when the said document is sought to be adduced in evidence by the plaintiff and in the event of any objection being raised, the trial Court shall adjudicate upon the same and pass appropriate orders on merits without being influenced by the endorsement made earlier.

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the

¶11

year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J

¶13

rkk Dated: 11-7-2011

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society v. G.Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society v. G.Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gundreddi Laxma Reddy, Vs P.Sudhakar Reddy

Somaluri Naga Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ms.G.Vijayalaxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kusuma Chaitanya Mohan Vs The State of A.P.

B.Satyanarayana Vs B.Srilatha

Kusuma Ugavara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh