APHC010239192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1315 Between: 1. KURAKULA PRABHAKAR, S/O SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CENTERING WORK, DOOR NO. 16 NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR. 1. MANDURI PRAKASH, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 16 NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR. 2. GADDE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR GADDE SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VEERA VASANTHA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 505, 3RD LINE, KOMMINENI NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, GUNTUR. 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 topleased to set aside the order, dated 15 O.S.No.261 of 2022 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur and to pass IA 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 261 of 2022 on the file of I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1315 OF 2025 KURAKULA PRABHAKAR, S/O SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CENTERING WORK, DOOR NO. 16-15-258/A, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND MANDURI PRAKASH, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 16-15-258/A, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR. GADDE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR GADDE SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VEERA VASANTHA RAO, AGED 48 R/O PLOT NO. 505, 3RD LINE, KOMMINENI NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, GUNTUR. ...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 to set aside the order, dated 15-02-2025 passed in O.S.No.261 of 2022 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated it filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 261 of 2022 on the file of I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3207] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND KURAKULA PRABHAKAR, S/O SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 258/A, SRI KRISHNA ...PETITIONER MANDURI PRAKASH, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 258/A, SRI KRISHNA GADDE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR GADDE SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VEERA VASANTHA RAO, AGED 48 R/O PLOT NO. 505, 3RD LINE, KOMMINENI NAGAR, ...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 2025 passed in O.S.No.261 of 2022 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated it filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 261 of 2022 on the file of I 2 Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur pending the Civil Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1315 OF 2025 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order, dated 15.02.2025 in O.S.No.261 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Guntur (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.261 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Guntur, filed for specific performance of sale agreement dated 16.04.2017. 3. When the main suit came up for marking of the document, the trial Court made an objection for marking of sale agreement on the ground of stamp duty. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration of the amendment made to Article 6(B) of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act, the trial Court by its order, dated 15.02.2025 rejected the contention of the plaintiff and held that the sale agreement dated 16.4.2017 is an insufficiently stamped document and unless stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be admitted in evidence, even under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The trial Court further held that the sale agreement, dated 16.04.2017 is an insufficiently stamped document and it shall be impounded by collecting stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale agreement, dated 16.04.2017 does not require any stamp duty and penalty. To substantiate his arguments he relied upon the judgment in Cheryala Srinivas v. Moola Sujatha and others1 and the order, dated 14.11.2022 in C.R.P.No.1302 of 2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the sale agreement is insufficiently stamped document and therefore it is to be impounded. He further contends that the trial Court passed a reasoned order considering the amendment came into force on 30.11.2013 and as such the interference of the Court into the order of the trial Court is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Having considered the submissions of respective counsels and on careful examination of the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the suit filed for specific performance of sale agreement dated 16.04.2017 and the said sale agreement was executed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper. 8. On perusal of the same, it discloses that it is a non-possessory sale agreement. In fact, earlier a hundred rupee non-judicial stamp paper is sufficient for a non-possessory sale agreement, as earlier no article in Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act dealt with non-possessory sale agreements. But in the year 2013, in the combined state of Andhra Pradesh amended 1 (2010) 1 ALT 448 5 Article 6(B) of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act by specifying the stamp duty of the sale agreements without possession as 0.5% and the said amendment came into force on 30.11.2013. 9. Considering the said amendment, the trial Court held that non- possessory sale agreement shall be chargeable of stamp duty at 0.5%. It is also an admitted fact that the sale agreement dated 16.04.2017 is for Rs.40,00,000/-. But it was executed on hundred rupee non-judicial stamp paper. As such, it is clear that the sale agreement is insufficiently stamped document. 10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the petitioner in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as those two orders were passed prior to the date of amendment i.e., 13.11.2013 made to Article 6(B) of the Stamp Act. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the trial Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dated: 10.10.2025 TJN 6 57 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1315 OF 2025 Dated: 10.10.2025 TJN