P RAMESH Vs. SHAIKBEGUM BEE
LAWS(APH)-2008-12-48
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 10,2008

P RAMESH Appellant
VERSUS
SHAIKBEGUM BEE Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD Sri K. V. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.)SRI K. V. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that no doubt under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this application is filed in the present second appeal, but however, in the light of Section 107 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" in short for the purpose of convenience), there is no bar imposed on this Court even in a second appeal to pass appropriate or suitable orders, especially, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Counsel would explain that in the light of Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short for the purpose of convenience) inasmuch as the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the stamp duty and penalty, it may be just and proper to pass appropriate orders. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Code and also relevant provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions.
Per contra, Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that here is a party, who had taken advantage of the decree, which had been granted by the Court of first instance, was not interested in taking further steps, and inasmuch as, the same had been reversed by the Appellate Court at the stage of this second appeal, this application had been filed and there are no bona fides at all. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the purpose of paying the stamp duty and penalty of impounding is for the purpose of marking the document. The question of marking the document would not arise at the stage of second appeal. The learned Counsel also would point out that the petitioner had not chosen to mark this document before the trial Court. At any rate, the learned Counsel also would maintain that Section 38 (2) of the Act cannot be made applicable at the appellate stage. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and ultimately, would conclude that this is not a fit matter where the application to be allowed. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.)HEARD the learned Counsel.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.