APHC010261992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. BATHALA NARESH KUMAR,, SR) LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT U.S.A REP BY HIS G.P.A BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA (3RD PETITIONER) 2. BATHALA VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT 2/111, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. BATHALA SIVADEVA PRAKASH YEARS, 2. BATHALA MANJULA, W/O SIVADEVA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 2/30, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1091 OF 2022 BATHALA NARESH KUMAR,, SR) LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT U.S.A REP BY HIS G.P.A BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA (3RD PETITIONER) BATHALA VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, ABOUT 38 YEARS, BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT 2/111, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND BATHALA SIVADEVA PRAKASH, S/O NARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 BATHALA MANJULA, W/O SIVADEVA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 2/30, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560] DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA BATHALA NARESH KUMAR,, SR) LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT U.S.A REP BY HIS G.P.A BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA (3RD PETITIONER) BATHALA VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, BATHALA UDAYA NAGENDRA,, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT 2/111, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY KODUR TOWN AND ...PETITIONER(S) , S/O NARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 BATHALA MANJULA, W/O SIVADEVA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 2/30, BALIJA VEEDHI, RLY ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO The Court made the following Order: The Petitioners being Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction being O.S.No. 186 of 2017 before the learned Court below. The Plaintiffs filed an application for grant of interim injunction being I.A.No. 477 of 2107. At this stage, the Petitioners placed some documents including one unregistered Partition Deed. All the documents including unregistered Partition Deed were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The Respondents being the Defendants have also placed some documents, they are marked as Exs. R1 to R12. 2. On 23.03.2022 on hearing both sides, learned Trial Court has observed that Ex.P1 is unregistered Partition Deed, so he passed impugned order observing that it requires stamp duty and penalty and directed the Petitioners to pay stamp duty and penalty. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the Plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it appears, at the stage of Interlocutory Application, the Trial Court has marked several documents in favour of the Plaintiffs as well as Defendants. Learned Court below has observed that the document i.e Ex.P1 being an unregistered Partition Deed require to be impounded. 4. According to provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an instrument which is not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence. To understand the issue involved herein under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) is set out hereunder: 35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. — No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped : Provided that— (a) any such instrument [shall] be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of any instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of [fifteen rupees], or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds [fifteen rupees], of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of [three rupees] by the person tendering it; (c) Where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898); (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act. 5. 5. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the documents only relied by the parties in respect of I.A.No. 477 of 2017. Admittedly, this is not a stage for collection of evidence. The statutory guidelines under Section 35(a) of ‘the Act’ made it clear that when a party to the suit intends to admit an instrument, not duly stamped as documentary evidence, he is required to pay stamp duty with penalty. 6. In the present case, it appears, such stage of evidence has not reached yet in this suit. Thus, learned Court below had committed an error directing the Petitioner to pay requisite stamp duty and penalty. It may appear at later stage, the Petitioner may not choose rely this documents. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper for the Court not only marking the documents as exhibits, but also to direct the Petitioner to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty. 7. In my opinion, learned Court below shall consider the I.A.No. 477 of 2017 on the basis of documentary and oral evidence as placed by the parties, but not to mark the documents as exhibits at this stage, which can only be justified at the time of collection of evidences. Such stage has not yet to be reached in this suit. Thus, order passed by the learned Court below appears to be illegal and improper, thus the same is hereby set-aside. 8. I make it clear, learned Court below shall proceed with I.A.No. 477 of 2017 according to the oral and documentary evidences placed by the parties according to their prima facie prevalent status and shall decide the Interlocutory Application according to law. Learned Court below shall also at liberty to pass necessary order regarding impounding document at the relevant stage of witness action. 9. Under the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. 10. As the suit is pending before the learned Court below since long, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No. 477 of 2017 within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Suit be disposed of as early as possible, most preferably within one (01) year from the date of passing the order in I.A.No. 477 of 2017 without giving unnecessary adjournments to the parties. The parties are also directed to be vigilant and co-operative, so that direction of this Court can be complied with in its true letter and spirit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 13.11.2025 KK