IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1091 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2024 in I.A.No. 196 of 2023 in lA No. 498 OF 2022 in OS No.35 of 2022, on the file of Honourable III Additional District Judge at Srikakulam. Between: Buraka Mannenamahalakshmi, W/o M.Venkatarao, D/o Late BurakaKaruvayya, Aged 35 years, occ. House wife, R/o Kanchara - Veedhi, Budithi Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff AND 1. Daneti Dhanalakshmi, W/o late Ramarao, Aged 62 years, occ. House hold, R/o D.No. 2-11-40, Pedda Bondilipuram, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. Daniti Muralidhara Rao, S/o late Ramarao, Aged 38 years, occ. House hold, R/o D.No. 2-11-40, Pedda Bondilipuram, Srikakulam Town and District. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.35 of 2022 on the file of Honourable III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice. . > Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: Thp Court made the following order: 4 . V APHC010205222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1091/2025 Between: Buraka Mannenamahalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Daneti Dhanalakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 13.09.2024 in I.A.No.196 of 2023 in I.A.No.498 of 2022 in O.S.No.35 of 2022 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.35 of 2022 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated ,27.06.2020. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.498 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, for granting ad-interim injunction. In the said petition, the defendants filed I.A.No.196 of 2023 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act to impound the agreement of sale dated 27.06.2020 filed by the plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the plaintiff pleaded possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 27.06.2020, and as such, the agreement is to be impounded. 3. The plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the application. 4. By docket order dated 13.09.2024, the Court below allowed the petition, directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty for impounding the agreement dated 27.06.2020. 5. Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the suit is filed for Ac.0.0414 cents, out of Ac.0.09V2 cents, and the defendants denied delivery of possession. Thus, contended that the order is liable to be set aside. 6. As seen from the agreement of sale dated 27.06.2020 on the reverse side of the agreement, an endorsement dated 08.07.2020 was made about receipt of payment and delivery of possession. Thus, as seen from the endorsement dated 08.07.2020, possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff. Once the possession is delivered to the plaintiff, the stamp duty has to be paid as per 47-A and Schedule lA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In the case at hand, the agreement of sale was executed on a non-judicial stamp worth Rs.lOO/-. The Court below considered all these aspects and allowed the l.A. 7. Page 3 of 3 Given the discussion supra, this Court doesn’t find any perversity or illegality brooking interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to request the trial Court to send the agreement of sale to the District Registrar for impounding. 9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, 1. The-tU Additidnal District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. One CC to Sri P Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 I 03 SEP 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section . ^ ORDER mi, CRP.No.1091 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS