IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.497 of 2Q2fi Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 30.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.232 of 2024 in I.P. No. 11 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: Kanchanam Gopal, S/o. Late’K: Chinna, Aged 64 years, Occ; Business, R/o.H. No.40-814-1, Srinivas Nagar, Kurnool, A.P. ...PETltlONER/RESPONDENT/1®^ DEFENDANT AND M/s. K S Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor K. Rajesh, Aged 56 Business, R/o. Ashritha Homes, N.R. Nagar, Kurnool, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF M. Ayub Ali Khan, S/o. M. Gulam Ahmed Khan, Aged 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 220117, Sagmandi Street, Kurnool, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/2'^° DEFENDANT years, Occ: lA NO: 1 OF 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 r r pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Order dated 30.09.2024 passed in I.A. No. 232 of 2024 in I.P. No. 11 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, pending disposal of the revision case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHREYAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER ; ^. APHC010076342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.497 of 2025 Between: Kanchanam Gopal ...Petitioner AND M/s K S Industries and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: I.Shreyas Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.497 of 2025 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the 1®* respondent against the order, dated 30.09.2024, allowing I.A.No.232 of 2024 in I.P.No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Section 35(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, ‘the Stamp Act’) read with Section 151 CPC to admit the pocket receipt book filed along with the main petition as evidence upon payment of penalty. Heard Sri Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner /1®* respondent. In spite of service of notice, no appearance has been made on behalf of the 1®' respondent/petitioner. The 2 respondent is not a necessary party. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as before the trial Court. 2. nd The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.232 of 2024 is that he filed along with the main petition, a pocket receipt book which contains the receipts of the gold / gold ornaments that the 1®* respondent had taken from the petitioner and the record of part payments and outstanding payments owed by the 1®* respondent. During the trial, it was found that the aforesaid instrument is not duly stamped, and therefore, cannot be received in evidence on behalf of the petitioner. The aforesaid instrument is an essential document to prove the liability of the 1®* respondent. Therefore, while undertaking to pay deficit stamp duty, the petitioner prayed to order collection of stamp duty and penalty as per Section 35(b) read with Article 53 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act for admitting the pocket note book in evidence. 3. 4. The 1®‘ respondent filed counter opposing the petition and contending that the petition is not maintainable under Section 35(b) of I 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.497 of 2025 n the Stamp Act as the pocket dairy, which is alleged to have receipts, is not included in the nature of documents under the Stamp Act. The petitioner never averred the nature of the document, valuation of the document as on the date of execution. The pocket book does not show the business: name(s) of the petitioner and/or the respondent; quantity of gold or gold ornaments; the rate of gold as on the date of credit; the terms and conditions of repayment of credit of gold; firm; creditors’ list and other details. The petition is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both parties, the trial Court, by the impugned docket order, allowed the petition. The operative portion of the order reads as under: 5. “Under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, ‘no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, unless such instrument is duly stamped’. Therefore, since the pocket receipt book which is an instrument insufficiently stamped cannot be received in evidence unless stamp duty and penalty is paid on the said document. The objections raised by the R1 cannot be looked into at the stage of collection of stamp duty and penalty, petitioner shall be given an opportunity to pay stamp duty and penalty on the pocket receipt book. In the result, the petition is allowed.” Therefore, the 6. Aggrieved by the same, this revision was filed. 7. In the grounds of revision, it is mainly contended that the impugned order is bad in law for readily accepting the pocket diary book as an instrument of receipt without assigning reasons whatsoever to support such conclusion. 4 BSBJ C.R.P.No.497 of 2025 The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the document sought to be impounded does not fall within the definition of ‘receipt’ under Section 2(23) read with Article 53, Schedule-1 of the Stamp Act, however, without giving any finding as to how the proposed document is ‘receipt’ within such definition, the trial Court erroneously held it as receipt and allowed the petition to admit the document in evidence on payment of penalty. 8. In the light of the above contentions, it is apt to refer the definition 9. of ‘receipt’. Section 2(23) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines the word ‘receipt’ as receipt includes any note, memorandum or writing; whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received; or whereby any other movable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt; or whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged; or (a) (b) (c) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any (d) person; Article 53 of Schedule-I of the Stamp Act states of the stamp duty payable on the instrument of receipt as defined in Section 2(23) of the said Act. 10. 5 8SBJ C.R.P.No.497 of 2025 In B.Jaya Raghava Naidu Vs. B. Rama Subba Reddy\ it held that a receipt relates to acknowledgment of (1) receipt of any money or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note; (2) receipt of any other movable property in satisfaction of a debt; (3) satisfaction discharge of any debt or demand or any part of debt or demand or which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person. Therefore, it is evident that to treat an instrument as a receipt, it should contain all the above necessary elements. 11. was or The document in the present case except containing figures, calculations and dates in handwriting, no other particulars as required to make it a receipt are found. Moreover, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of stamp duty payable, the amount of receipt must be certain. However, without examining the ingredients required and giving reasons to treat the document as an instrument of ‘receipt’, the trial Court erroneously held that it is a receipt and allowed the petition. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. some In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 30.09.2024, passed in I.A.No.232 of 2024 in I.P.No.11 of 2020. As a sequel, I.A.No.232 of 2024 stands dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 2010 see Online AP 846=2011 (2) ALD 49 SD/- A.VIJAY BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. r ( One CC to Sri Shreyas Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 4. Three CD Copies TK TAG w HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 -x ORDER CRP.No.497 of 2025 ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION