Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 123 (AP)

Bandi Dhana Lakshmi v. Chalamala Satyanarayana

2003-01-23

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY

body2003
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 9-2-2001 passed in E. A. No. 688 of 2000 in E. P. No. 103 of 1996 in O. S. No. 126 of 1994 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada whereby the learned Judge dismissed the said E. A. No. 688 of 2000 filed by the petitioners under Section 151, C. P. C. and refused to accept the security bond. The impugned order reads follows :"in view of the order of High Court of A. P. in C. R. P. No. 371/99, dt. 28-8-2000 (reported in 2000 (5) Andh LT 375) the petitioners shall have a further period of one month from 28-8-2000 for furnishing security bond in this Court. But the petitioners did not furnish security bond duly executed and with required stamp in accordance with the Article 57 read with Article 15 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The alleged security bond of Bondada Venu Gopala Rao and Bondada Prabhavathi and the alleged security bond of Bandi Dhana Lakshmi (first petitioner herein) dated 27-9-2000 are not at all security bonds properly stamped and executed by them. Thus I have come to conclusion that the petitioners have failed to furnish the security bond in accordance with the order passed by High Court of A. P. in C. R. P. No. 371/99, dated 28-8-2000". ( 2 ) IT is apparent from the impugned order that the Junior Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that Article 57 read with Article 15 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bond furnished by the petitioners in compliance of the order passed in C. R. P. No. 371 of 1999 is required to be stamped under Article 14 (2) of Schedule 2 of the A. P. Court-fees Act. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Pitchamma v. Pedamuneyya, AIR 1935 Madras 380 (FB ). It has been held in the cited decision that the security bond, which is required to be stamped in compliance of the order of the Court comes within the ambit of Article 6, Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act and not under the Stamp Act. It has been held in the cited decision that the security bond, which is required to be stamped in compliance of the order of the Court comes within the ambit of Article 6, Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act and not under the Stamp Act. The proposition of law is well settled in the cited decision that it is only the Court-fees act that applies and not the Stamp Act with regard to the security bond that is required to be stamped in compliance of the order of the Court. This proposition of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 9-2-2000 passed in E. A. No. 688 of 2000 in E. P. No. 103 of 1996 in O. S. No. 126 of 1994 and consequently the E. A. No. 688 of 2000 stands restored to file. No costs. Revision allowed.