Dismissed

Smt. Sharada Bai (Major) v. Vishwanath Agarwal

Telangana HC18 Apr 2013CRP/5728/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a civil revision against a lower appellate court order dismissing their application to reject a development agreement (Ex.B-2) on the ground of inadequate stamp duty. The court held that power to reject such documents lies only with the trial court, and the appellate court correctly dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. The lower appellate court is directed to take up the matter for hearing forthwith and dispose of the same within three months.

Smt. Sharada Bai (Major) Vs Vishwanath Agarwal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5728 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Petitioners filed O.S. No.3821 of 2004 in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents for a declaration to the effect that the construction permission accorded by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the 1^st respondent is illegal. The suit was decreed on 04-09-2008. The 1^st respondent filed A.S. No.289 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶4

In that appeal, petitioners filed I.A. No.3255 of 2008 under Rule – 3 of Order - XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) with a prayer to reject the document marked as Ex.B-2 on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. The appellate Court dismissed the application on 19-10-2010. Hence, this revision.

¶5

2. Heard Sri K.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

¶6

3. The petitioners were successful in their suit. One of the documents relied upon by the respondent was Ex.B-2 - the development agreement. The petitioners, no doubt, raised an objection as to adequacy of the stamp duty paid thereon. However, the trial Court was satisfied with the stamp duty that was already paid and it was taken on record. At the stage of appeal, petitioners wanted the said document to be rejected. The power to reject a document, if it is found to be unnecessary, is conferred only on trial Court under Rule – 3 of Order – XIII of CPC. It is too well known that in an appeal, the appellate Court would examine the correctness or otherwise of the judgment rendered by the trial Court with reference to the material that is available on record. However, if part of the evidence is taken away, the very purport would change. The petitioners can certainly urge the question as to admissibility of the document at the stage of hearing of

¶7

the appeal. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter.

¶8

4. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The lower appellate Court shall take up the matter for hearing forthwith and dispose of the same within a period of three (03) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶10

April 18, 2013. PV

Smt. Sharada Bai (Major) v. Vishwanath Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharada Bai (Major) v. Vishwanath Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majji Siva Reddy, Vs Gudla Krishna Kishore

M. Lakshmi Priyanka Vs Ajay Jain.

Surisetty Revathi Vs Taladi Yelamanda Rao

P.Vijaya Kumar Vs M/s.Dhana Raasi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

Smt.Reddipalli Satya Kumar Vs Sri Moturi Eswara Rao

Sri D. Satyanarayana, Vs Sri Ramchander Rao