APHC010477812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O EDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT NOT MENTIONED,R/O D.NO.13 GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. MADDULA SHYAM SUNDER, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 06-14-48, 14/2, ARUDELPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT) . . 2. MADDULA SAMPATH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY RESIDING ABROAD AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 06-14-48, 14/2, ARUDELPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT) . . 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 topetitioner begs to present this Memorandum o Revision Petition being aggrieved by the docket order Dated.10.07.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2368 OF 2023 DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O EDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT NOT MENTIONED,R/O D.NO.13-02-81 2ND LANE, GUNTURVARITHOTA, ...PETITIONER AND MADDULA SHYAM SUNDER, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, EMPLOYEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING ABROAD AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 48, 14/2, ARUDELPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT) . . TH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY RESIDING ABROAD AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF , ARUDELPET, GUNTUR 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 topetitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the docket order Dated.10.07.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O EDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT NOT 81 2ND LANE, GUNTURVARITHOTA, ...PETITIONER MADDULA SHYAM SUNDER, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED EMPLOYEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING ABROAD AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY RESIDING ABROAD AND BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THEIR FATHER SRI MADDULA VENKATAKRSHNA RAO S/O YALLAMANDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ...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 f Grounds of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the docket order Dated.10.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.614 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 614 of 2017 on the file of the 1 st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur., pending disposal of the Main C.R.P.and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KURAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DARSI BALA RAJU 2. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2023 passed in O.S.No.614 of 2017 by the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, ordering impounding of insufficiently stamped document i.e. Deposit Agreement-cum-receipt, which is ought to be marked as a suit document, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.614 of 2017. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below. 4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.614 of 2017 for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of delivering vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and also for recovery of Rs.1,12,820/- towards balance of damages for use and occupation from 06.09.2017 to 05.10.2017 with future damages for use and occupation at Rs.1,46,410/-. The defendant filed his written statement along with counter claim for recovery of Rs.21,68,400/- with subsequent interest. The plaintiffs adduced their evidence and the defendant filed his affidavit-in-chief. At the time of marking of documents, the plaintiff raised objection for marking of document Deposit Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 06.8.2008, on the ground that the said instrument is insufficiently stamped document. The defendant opposed the said objection contending that the document dated 06.8.2008, which is sought to be marked as exhibit, is not a Bond but a receipt. In view of rival contentions of both the parties and referring to provisions of Section 2 (23) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Court below ordered impounding of the said document for payment of stamp duty by holding that the Deposit Agreement- cum-Receipt, which is said to be marked, is a bond, vide its order dated 10.7.2023. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submits that the Court below erroneously considered the objections raised by the plaintiff and directed the payment of stamp duty at 3% of the agreement-cum-receipt for interest free refund deposit. Further, the Court below has erroneously came to a conclusion that nature of the document is a Bond instead of Receipt as the content is stamped acknowledgment and receipt for receiving the amount towards refundable deposit. Hence, the Court below came to said conclusion and the order under impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the nature of the document, which is sought to be marked, is a bond and not a receipt and the trial Court rightly opined that the document is a bond and is liable to be impounded for payment of stamp duty and penalty and that the Court below is justified in ordering the document to be impounded as it is insufficiently stamped document and that the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties and the issue involved, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the court below is justified in ordering the impounding of the insufficiently stamped document for payment of stamp duty and penalty? 9. Before going to proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to subject document which reads as under: “……..I hereby acknowledge and confirm having received from you the sum of Rs.18,00,000/- Rupees (Eighteen Lakhs Only) as an interest-free refundable deposit. The interest-free refundable deposit shall remain with me throughout the period of the said agreement. I shall, on the expiry or earlier determination of the said agreement, as the case may be, refund to you the aforesaid interest-free refundable deposit of Rs.18,00,000/- Rupees (Eighteen Lakhs Only) simultaneously with you handing over possession of the said premises to me. I shall hold the security deposit without liability for interest and as security for the performance by you of your covenants and obligations under this lease, it being expressly understood that you shall not consider the security deposit an advance payment of rent or a measure of my damages in case of default. I may commingle the security deposit with my other funds. I may, from time to time, without prejudice to any other remedy, use the security deposit to the extent necessary to make good any arrearages of rent or to satisfy any other covenant or obligation of you hereunder………” 10. A thorough reading of the recitals of the document makes it clear the nomenclature of the document is a Bond. It would be relevant to refer the definition of “Bond” provided under Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as under: 2(5) “Bond” - “bond” includes - (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another: 11. A reading of the recitals of the subject document in tune with the provision of Section 2(5) of the Act makes it clear that the nomenclature of the document is not a conclusive. 12. On perusal of the recitals of the subject document, this court finds that the instrument consists of three paragraphs. The first paragraph is about leasing out the shop premises to the defendant, the second paragraph relates to receipt of amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as an interest free refundable deposit, whereas the third paragraph relates to an obligation conferred on the executant to refund the security deposit after termination of the lease. As per the recitals of third paragraph of the document, an obligation is conferred on the executant i.e. Yallamanda to refund the security deposit amount, in the event the defendant is not in default at the time of termination of lease. Therefore, the subject document is considered to be a Bond. 13. However, as seen from the order under challenge, the findings given by the court below in ordering impounding of the subject document, keeping in view the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, is just, reasonable and well founded and such findings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 26.09.2025 TJN 268 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2368 OF 2023 Date: 26.09.2025 TJN