1 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 APHC010289802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1452/2024 Between: 1. CHITTEPU LAKSHMI REDDY, S/O. C. NARAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, HINDU, OCCUPATION BUSINESS. R/O. D.NO. 1/1762-1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 2. SMT. CHITTEPU PADMAVATHI, , W/O. C. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HINDU.E R/O. D.NO. 1/1762-1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 3. CHITTEPU VENKATA MOHAN REDDY,, S/O. C. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS.E R/O. D.NO. 1/1762- 1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 4. SMT. KANUPARTHI UJWALA, , W/O. C. VENKATA MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU.E R/O. D.NO. 1/1762-1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 5. CHITTEPU VENKATA MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,, S/O. C. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, HINDU, DOCTOR.E R/O. D.NO. 1/1762-1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 6. SMT. BYREDDY ANUSHA,, W/O. C. VENKATA MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, DOCTOR E R/O. D.NO. 1/1762-1, YERRAMKKAPALLE, KADAPA CITY. 2 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SMT YENUGA SURYA DEVI, W/O. Y. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. DOOR NO.L/256-3C-5, SRI YSRM DEGREE COLLEGE, SWASTHIK NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. SRI SITARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, , KADAPA (REGISTRATION NO. 145/1981), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR CUM CORRESPONDENT, AUTHORIZED EXECUTIVE, YENUGA GOPAL REDDY, S/O. Y. BASI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. 1/256-3C-5, SRI YSRM DEGREE COLLEGE, SWASTHIK NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the C.R.P. and set aside the order in I.A.No.l056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021, dated 18.06.2024, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa and grant such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the order in LA.No.l056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021, dated 18.06.2024, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal of the C.R.P., and grant such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POLANKI ANAND SURYA 2. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 3 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.1056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.46 of 2021 before the Court below against the 1st respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.03.2021 and for permanent injunction, wherein, the 1st respondent herein has filed I.A.No.462 of 2023 requesting the Court below to send the suit document to the registering authority for impounding and the said application was ordered on 22.09.2022 and thereafter, the suit agreement was sent to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding. The District Registrar, Kadapa has collected the stamp duty. During the said process, the 1st respondent herein has again filed I.A.No.1056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021 before the Court below, seeking to resend the original agreement of sale dated 09.03.201 along with the plan for impounding together with the structures existing on the said property with reference to the schedule of the suit agreement to the District Registrar, Kadapa alleging that though the structures on the ground are more in extent, the petitioners herein, have mislead the authorities and have shown the structures as less in extent. 4 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 The said application was allowed by the Court below on 18.06.2021 which reads as under: “9. In the result, the petition is allowed by re-sending the agreement of sale dt.09.3.2021 along with plan annexed to this petition, to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding to collect the necessary stamp duty and penalty if any on the structures. If the impounding authority feels it appropriate, he is at liberty to verify the property physically and structures existing in order to come to right assessment. The office is directed to resent the agreement of sale dt.09.3.2021 along with plan annexed to this petition, to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding stamp duty and penalty.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present petition. 3. When the petition came up for hearing on 12.07.2024, this Court has passed an interim order suspending the operation and effect of the order in I.A.No.1056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021, dated 18.06.2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The said interim order was thereafter extended from time to time. 4. Heard Sri. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 5 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 5. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel has contended that impounding of a document in the suit is a onetime measure and when a document is already impounded by paying deficit stamp duty, resending the same document for impounding for the second time does not arise and that the same is impermissible in law. In the present case, in view of the orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.462 of 2023, the suit agreement of sale was impounded for the purpose of stamp duty and the penalty levied by the District Collector/District Registrar of an amount of Rs.20,86,970/- was paid by the petitioners. In such a case, resending the suit agreement of sale for impounding is unjust and the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that there is no such provision for re-impounding the said document and that if necessary, the order of impounding passed by the District Registrar can be challenged before the appropriate forum or by filing a writ petition, but, filing another application with a request to resend the document for impounding for the second time is untenable. Further, the Court below has not assigned any reasons as to why it has directed the document to be resent for impounding. As such, learned Senior Counsel has requested this Court to set aside the order passed by the Court below. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that petitioners herein have filed a petition in I.A.No.462 of 2023 to send the suit 6 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 agreement of sale to the registering authority for impounding, which was allowed by the Court below and thereafter, the suit agreement of sale was sent to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding. However, though the existing structures on ground are more in extent, the petitioners herein, by misleading the authorities, have shown less structures than original. As the suit document was not impounded for the extent available on the ground, the 1st respondent has filed I.A.No.1056 of 2023 before the Court below, requesting the Court below to resend the document for impounding. Considering the fact that the petitioners herein have suppressed the material particulars and structures existing on the property, the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference of this Court. As such, he requested to dismiss the present petition. 7. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be observed that the petitioners/plaintiffs have initially filed O.S.No.46 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to execute pucca registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs within the time to be fixed by the Court below. Thereafter, the suit agreement of sale was impounded for the purpose of stamp duty as per the orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.562 of 2022 and stamp duty penalty was also levied by the District Collector/District Registrar amounting to Rs.20,86,970/-, which was admittedly paid by the 7 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 petitioners/plaintiffs. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein has filed I.A.No.1056 of 2023 in the aforesaid suit for resending the suit agreement of sale dated 09.03.2021 along with plan for impounding together with the structures on the property to the District Registrar, which was also allowed by the Court below vide order dated 18.06.2024. The Court below, while passing the impugned order, has observed as under: “8…Coming to the main point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the document was already impounded properly by the District Registrar, Kadapa and cannot be sent again. The claim of the petitioner in her affidavit that the respondents/plaintiffs have suppressed the material particulars and structures existing on the property and therefore, existing structures are not taken into account while impounding the document i.e. agreement of sale. At this stage, this Court cannot decide whether the respondents herein suppressed the material facts by impounding the agreement of sale. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances together with the arguments of both the parties, it is appropriate to resend the document to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding the same as required by the petitioner/defendant No.2 and to collect the necessary stamp duty and penalty, if any on the structures and so also no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiff, if the agreement of sale resend to the District Registrar for impounding stamp duty and penalty. In any event, if the impounding authority i.e. District Registrar, Kadapa feels it appropriate, he is at liberty to verify the property physically and structures existing in order to come to right assessment.” 8. It can be observed from the aforesaid order that the main contention of the respondents herein before the Court below is that the petitioners/plaintiffs have suppressed the material particulars and structures existing on the 8 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 property and that the existing structures were not taken into account earlier, while impounding the document and penalizing the petitioners/plaintiffs. The Court below has rightly observed that truth or otherwise cannot be decided at that stage, but, however, the Court below has erroneously directed the document to be resent to the District Registrar, Kadapa for impounding the same stating that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs. When the Court below was uncertain whether it can decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioners/plaintiffs, it ought not to have passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons. 9. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, if at all the respondents/defendants are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Registrar wherein the suit agreement was impounded and necessary stamp duty was collected, they could have challenged the said order before an appropriate forum or by filing a writ petition. While the rule of exhausting alternative remedies is discretionary, it is generally inappropriate for the High Court to entertain a petition when the petitioner has effective alternatives, such as challenging the impugned order or appeal before appropriate forum. Even in the case on hand, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the order passed by the District Registrar wherein the suit agreement was impounded. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has erred in resending the suit agreement for re-impounding. 9 VS,J CRP_1452_2024 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the present civil revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.1056 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2021. The respondents are at liberty to challenge the impounding order passed by the District Registrar, Kadapa before appropriate forum, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 14.08.2025 Gss