JUDGMENT : SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred as ‘Petitioner’) by means of the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has assailed four orders: (i) order dated 27.09.2017 passed by Additional Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 41 of 2010 whereby it rejected the application 123Ga of the petitioner for taking the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 and F.I.R. dated 17.11.1996 on record, (ii) order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 8 of 2018 dismissing the revision of petitioner against the order dated 27.09.2017, (iii) order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional Small Causes Court, Meerut rejecting the application 155Ga of the petitioner praying for impounding the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 and further direction to the District Magistrate to accept the deficient stamp duty alongwith penalty and compounding charges from the petitioner and send the rent deed back to the court and (iv) order dated 07.11.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut dismissing the SCC Revision No. 44 of 2019 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.02.2019. 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred as ‘Respondent’) instituted SCC Suit No. 41 of 2010 contending inter-alia that the petitioner is the tenant of Shop No. 4B situated in building no. 171/B-E Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as ‘disputed shop’) on the monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The eviction of the petitioner has been sought mainly on two grounds; the petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2010 to 02.09.2010. Secondly, the petitioner has willfully caused substantial damage to the building and made material alteration in the disputed shop by raising construction. The plea as regards the material alteration have been stated in detail by the respondent in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint. 4. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement on 01.01.2011 contending inter-alia that father of the respondent instituted SCC Case No. 8 of 1994 for eviction against the petitioner contending that he had not paid the rent @ Rs. 1050/- per month in terms of rent deed dated 26.12.1986. The suit was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut by judgment and order dated 30.03.2002 with the cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 1050/- per month in terms of rent deed dated 26.12.1986. The suit was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut by judgment and order dated 30.03.2002 with the cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioner denied the factum of alteration and construction alleged to have been raised by him. Besides above, several other pleas have been taken the reference of which are not relevant for the present case. 5. It transpires from the record that the final argument of the respondent in SCC Suit No. 41 of 2010 was concluded and the case was fixed for the argument of the petitioner. On the date fixed for the arguments of the petitioner, he filed an application 123Ga dated 09.08.2017 with a prayer for accepting on record the two documents: (i) F.I.R. Dated 17.11.1996, (ii) Rent deed dated 26.12.1986. It was averred in the application that petitioner while preparing the case could lay hands to the aforesaid documents. On discovery of the aforesaid documents, he filed an application for taking those documents on record without any delay and if the aforesaid documents are not admitted on record, it would cause irreparable injury and injustice to the petitioner. 6. The aforesaid application 123Ga was contested by the respondent by filing objection 128Ga denying the execution of rent deed dated 26.12.1986. The respondent further stated that petitioner did not file the aforesaid two documents alongwith evidence filed by him in the year 2012 and 2013. It was further stated that the suit is being fixed for hearing for the last 3 years, and if the documents are accepted, the trial would start de novo. There is an inordinate delay of about 8 years in filing the application 123Ga by the petitioner without there being any proper and cogent explanation for the delay in filing the said application. The respondent further stated that application 123Ga has been filed only to delay the disposal of the suit. It was also stated that the petitioner has not elaborated the details of alleged rent deed dated 26.12.1986 in paragraph 16 and 17 of the written statement, and in fact, he has denied the fact of making any material alteration in the disputed shop in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the written statement. 7. It was also stated that the petitioner has not elaborated the details of alleged rent deed dated 26.12.1986 in paragraph 16 and 17 of the written statement, and in fact, he has denied the fact of making any material alteration in the disputed shop in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the written statement. 7. The trial court by order dated 27.09.2017 dismissed the application on the ground that application 123Ga has been filed only to delay the disposal of the suit. 8. The order dated 27.09.2017 was assailed by the petitioner in SCC Revision No. 8 of 2018 which was also dismissed by the court of District Judge, Meerut on the ground that alleged rent deed is written on stamp paper of Rs. 7/- and is insufficiently stamped, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence because of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1899) till the time proviso (a) appended to Section 35 are complied with. Consequently, it held that the rent deed cannot be taken on record. The revision court refused to take the other document i.e. F.I.R. on record on the ground that said documents has no bearing in the present case. 9. The record reflects that after the dismissal of the Revision no. 8 of 2018, the petitioner filed another application 155Ga on 01.01.2019 after about 8 months. The petitioner averred in the said application that he had filed rent deed with application 123Ga with a prayer to take the same on record which was rejected by the trial court. It is further stated that the revision court in affirming the order of the trial court observed that the rent deed is insufficiently stamped and is inadmissible in evidence and can be impounded under Section 33 of the Act, 1899. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed in the said application that the rent deed may be impounded and send to the District Magistrate with direction to accept the deficient stamp duty alongwith penalty and compounding charges and send the rent deed back to the court. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed in the said application that the rent deed may be impounded and send to the District Magistrate with direction to accept the deficient stamp duty alongwith penalty and compounding charges and send the rent deed back to the court. 10. The aforesaid application 155Ga was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 12.02.2019 holding that application 123Ga of petitioner for taking the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 on record was rejected by this Court by order dated 27.09.2017 affirmed in revision, since the order passed in Revision No. 8 of 2018 has not been assailed by the petitioner and same has attained finality, therefore, application 155Ga is misconceived and same has been filed only to delay the disposal of the suit. 11. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred SCC Revision No. 44 of 2019 against the order dated 12.02.2019 which was also dismissed by the revision court affirming the finding of the trial court in rejecting the application 155Ga. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court below has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application 123Ga for taking the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 on record and also the application 155Ga for impounding the rent deed dated 26.12.1986. He submits that delay cannot be a ground to reject the application 123Ga since it is settled in law that court should be liberal in accepting the evidence to do the substantial justice. He further submits that rent deed dated 26.12.1986 belies the case of the respondent regarding the material alternation by the petitioner, therefore, in the interest of justice, the court below ought to have taken the said document on record. 13. He further submits that once it has come to the notice of the court that a document is insufficiently stamped, a duty is cast upon the court under Section 33 of the Act, 1899 to impound the same and send it to the competent authority to proceed following the procedure contemplated under Section 35 of the Act, 1899. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, 2011 (11) SCC 66. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that no explanation of inordinate delay of eight years in filing the application 123Ga has been given by the petitioner. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that no explanation of inordinate delay of eight years in filing the application 123Ga has been given by the petitioner. He further submits that the revision court in affirming the order of the trial court rejecting the application 123Ga considered the consequences of taking the rent deed on record and after appreciating the law on the subject found that rent deed is insufficiently stamped and is an unregistered document, and as such, is inadmissible in evidence, therefore, it cannot be taken on record and admitted in evidence. 15. He further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had carried out material alteration in the disputed shop because of conditions stipulated in the rent deed authorising the petitioner to carry out alternation rather a perusal of the written statement discloses that he has denied the fact of material alteration in the disputed shop. He further submits that petitioner though has referred to the alleged rent deed dated 26.12.1986 in paragraph 17 of the written statement but has not elaborated the details of the rent deed in the written statement. Thus, the submission is that in the absence of any pleading that the alleged rent deed permitted the petitioner to carry out modification or alteration in the disputed shop in the written statement, the alleged rent deed cannot be read in evidence, therefore, the aforesaid facts make it obvious that the application 123Ga has mischievously been filed to delay the disposal of the suit. 16. He further submits that the order of the revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming the order dated 27.09.2017 has not been assailed by the petitioner and same has attained finality, therefore, application 155Ga was not maintainable. He submits that the question of impounding a document would arise only after the same has been accepted on record by the orders of the court whereas in the present case, the application 123Ga of the petitioner for taking the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 on record has already been rejected by the trial court which order has been affirmed by the revision court, accordingly, he submits that the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application 155Ga. 17. 17. He further submits that the application 155Ga is barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata since the plea sought to be raised in application 155Ga could have been raised by the petitioner in application 123Ga, as such, the application 155Ga is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and has been rightly dismissed by the court below. 18. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 19. I will first deal with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect to the order of the court below on application 123Ga. 20. The facts as emerging out from the record are that the suit has been instituted in the year 2010. One of the grounds on which the eviction has been sought is that the petitioner has made material alteration in the disputed shop. The petitioner has filed written statement in January 2011 wherein he has referred the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 in paragraph 17 in reference to the institution of suit No. 8 of 1994 by the father of respondent Roshan Lal Saigal against petitioner for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The petitioner has not detailed about the terms and conditions of the rent deed which permitted him to carry out modification or alternation in the disputed shop in the written statement. The petitioner in paragraphs 25 to 27 of the written statement has denied carrying out any material alteration in the disputed shop. The petitioner has not detailed about the terms and conditions of the rent deed which permitted him to carry out modification or alternation in the disputed shop in the written statement. The petitioner in paragraphs 25 to 27 of the written statement has denied carrying out any material alteration in the disputed shop. It would be worth to extract paragraphs 17 and 25 to 27 of the written statement herein-below:- ^^17- ;g fd blds ckn oknh ds firk e`rd jks'kuyky lgxy us mRrjnkrk Áfroknh dks rax o ijs'kku djus ds mn~ns'; ls ,d y?kqokn la[;k 8 lu 94 jks'kuyky lgxy cuke ;wisUæ dqekj dkyjk ckcr fdjk;k csn[kyh U;k;ky; ftyk tt esjB esa bl dFku ds lkFk ;ksftr fd;k fd fnukad 26-12-1986 dks gq, bdjkjukek }kjk fdjk;k fnukad 1-12-1991 ls vadu 1045@& :i;s r; ik;k x;k tks Áfroknh us vnk ugha fd;k rFkk Áfroknh ds fo:} >wBs o vk/kkjghu vkjksi yxkrs gq, okn ;ksftr fd;kA bl okn esa mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us viuk Áfrokni= ÁLrqr djrs gq, fdjk;k vadu 1045@& :i;s esa VSDl vkfn tksM+rs gq, rkfd Hkfo"; esa dksbZ fof/kd O;o/kku mRiUu u gks vadu 1111@& :i;s Áfrekg dh nj ls e; C;kt vkfn [kpkZ U;k;ky; esa tek fd;k rFkk okn ds fuLrkj.k rd blh nj ls fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek djrk jgkA rnqijkar mDr okn fnukad 30-03-2002 dks U;k;ky; vij ftyk tt dksVZ uEcj 8 esjB }kjk fo'ks"k O;; vadu 3000@& :i;s lfgr [kafMr gqvk tks e`rd jks'kuyky vFkok mudh e`R;qijkar oknh vkt rd Hkh vnk ugha fd;kA 25- ;g fd oknh dk dFku fd mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us nqdku fookfnr esa tkucw>dj lqCLVsU'ky MSest djrs gq, /kkjk 7 okni= esa dkWye ¼1½] ¼2½] ¼3½ ,oa ¼4½ fn, x;s o.kkZuqlkj nqdku esa Nfr dkfjr dh gS xyr gS cfYd mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us nqdku fookfnr esa dksbZ Nfr fdlh Ádkj dh tSlk oknh us vius okni= esa mYysf[kr fd;k gS ugha dhA oknh us mRrjnkrk Áfroknh ds fo:} >wBs o vk/kkjghu vkjksi yxkdj mDr okn ;ksftr dj fn;k gSA okLro esa oknh ds firk e`rd jks'kuyky us mRrjnkrk Áfroknh dks tSlh nqdku ij nh oSlh gh nqdku vc rd pyh vk jgh gSA mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us nqdku fookfnr esa nqdku fdjk;s ij ysus ds fnukad ls vkt rd ,slk dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k ftlls nqdku dh mi;ksfxrk vFkok cktkjh dher esa dksbZ deh vkbZ gks u gh Áfroknh us nqdku fookfnr esa dksbZ Nfr dkfjr dhA leLr dFku oknh >wBk o cscqfu;kn gS tks mlus okn ;ksftr djus ds mn~ns'; ls fy[kk gS vkSj mldk oknh dksbZ ykHk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 26- ;g fd oknh dFku fd mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us oknh dh fcuk vuqefr ÁkIr fd;s nqdku fookfnr esa lqCLVsU'ky MSest djrs gq, dfFkr fuekZ.k dj lkoZHkwr ifjorZu djrs gq, nqdku dks fMlfQxj dj fn;kA ftlls nqdku dh dher o mi;ksfxrk esa deh gqbZ vkSj Áfroknh /kkjk 20¼2½ lh vf/kfu;e 13 lu 72 ds rgr dkfcys csn[kyh gS xyr gSA tc mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us nqdku fdjk;s ij ysus ds fnukad ls vkt rd nqdku esa dqN fd;k gh ugha rks mRrjnkrk Áfroknh dk /kkjk 20¼2½ lh vf/kfu;e 13 lu 72 dk mYya/ku djus vFkok mlds rgr csn[ky gksus dk dksbZ Á'u mRiUu ugha gksrk\ leLr dFku oknh >wBk rFkk cscqfu;kn gS dks mlus vius okni= dks jaxr nsus ds mn~ns'; ls fy[kk gS vkSj mRrjnkrk Áfroknh dks Lohdkj ugha gSA 27- ;g fd oknh us vius okni= dh /kkjk 8 esa dkWye ¼1½ o ¼2½ esa ftl dfFkr fooj.k dk mYys[k fd;k gS og >wBk rFkk cscqfu;kn gSA okLro esa mRrjnkrk Áfroknh us nqdku fookfnr esa dksbZ Nfr fdlh Ádkj dh ugha igqapkbZ gS] u gh oknh }kjk fd;s x;s dfFkr fooj.k ds vuqlkj dksbZ MSest fd;k] u vYVjs'ku fd;k] u ifjorZu fd;k] u fuekZ.k fd;k] u gh ,slk dksbZ dk;Z fd;k ftlls nqdku dh mi;ksfxrk vFkok dher esa dksbZ deh mRiUu gks] u nqdku dks fMlfQxj fd;kA leLr dFku oknh >wBk o cscqfu;kn gS tks mRrjnkrk Áfroknh dks Lohdkj ugha gSA** 21. It is also evident from the application 123Ga that the argument of the respondent was concluded and the suit was fixed for the argument of petitioner, and at that point of time, the application 123Ga was filed after a delay of about eight years. The only explanation for the delay tendered by the petitioner in the application is that during the course of preparation of the case, he found the rent deed in the record and filed application 123Ga without any delay. The trial court found the explanation for the delay of eight years in filing the application unacceptable, accordingly, it dismissed the application holding that the application 123Ga has been filed only with the purpose to delay the disposal of the suit. 22. The revision court also found no illegality in the order of the trial court dated 27.09.2017 dismissing the application 123Ga and held that the rent deed is insufficiently stamped and is an unregistered document, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. It, accordingly, rejected the revision of the petitioner. 23. It is pertinent to notice that petitioner had filed evidence in the year 2012 and 2013, but he did not file the rent deed. There is no averment in the application 123Ga about his endeavours in finding out the rent deed in the last eight years. The explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application 123Ga is not believable for the reason that the case was pending for the last eight years and several dates had been fixed in the case on which petitioner must have flipped through the record of the case, it is very strange that he could not lay his hands to the rent deed while preparing the case in the last eight years and he surreptitiously got it just before the date fixed for his argument. In this view of the fact, the petitioner has failed to give a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of eight years in filing the application. 24. Further, the revision court while affirming the order of trial court rejecting application 123Ga found the rent deed is inadmissible in evidence since it is insufficiently stamped and an unregistered document. 25. 24. Further, the revision court while affirming the order of trial court rejecting application 123Ga found the rent deed is inadmissible in evidence since it is insufficiently stamped and an unregistered document. 25. The petitioner in application 123Ga has stated that he has carried out alteration in the disputed shop in terms of rent deed dated 26.12.1986, therefore, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the case, the rent deed may be taken on record, but no such case has been set up by the petitioner in the written statement. Petitioner has referred the rent deed in paragraph 17 of the written statement in a different context and not in reference to the terms and conditions of the rent deed under which he had carried out alternation in the disputed shop. The petitioner has denied the fact of material alteration which is evident from paragraph no. 25 to 27 of the written statement extracted above. 26. From the facts detailed above, it is apparent that it is not the case of the petitioner in the written statement that he has made material alteration in the disputed shop in terms of rent deed, therefore, the rent deed cannot be read in evidence in the absence of any pleading by the petitioner in the written statement. So, the petitioner cannot take the help of rent deed to negate the case of the respondent of material alteration of the petitioner. Further, the fact that the Petitioner acknowledges that the rent deed is insufficiently stamped is manifest from the act of the petitioner as he did not challenge the order of the court below dismissing the application 123GA rather he filed an application 155Ga with a prayer to impound the rent deed and direct the authorities to accept deficient stamp duty, compounding fee and penalty from him. The aforesaid fact reflects that the purpose of filing the application123Ga that too after eight years is to delay the disposal of the suit. Thus, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order dated 27.09.2017 rejecting the application 123Ga and the order of revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming the order of the trial court dated 27.09.2017. 27. Now, I will consider the legality of orders on application 155Ga. Thus, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order dated 27.09.2017 rejecting the application 123Ga and the order of revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming the order of the trial court dated 27.09.2017. 27. Now, I will consider the legality of orders on application 155Ga. The court below in deciding application 155Ga observed that the petitioner's application 123Ga to accept the rent deed on record has been rejected by the trial court which order was affirmed by the revision court, and those two orders have not been assailed by the petitioner, therefore they have attained finality. Accordingly, it concluded that since the rent deed has not been accepted on record, it cannot be impounded. 28. This Court has upheld the order of the trial court and revision court rejecting the application 123Ga of the petitioner. The court can impound an insufficiently stamped document and direct to proceed in the manner provided under Sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Act, 1899 as held by the Apex Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited (supra) when the document has been accepted on record which is not the case here. Thus, the argument of counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited (supra) is not sustainable and rejected. 29. About the submission of the respondent that application 155Ga is barred by principles of res-judicata as provided in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is to be noted that the provision of res-judicata is based upon the principle that there shall be no multiplicity of proceedings and there shall be the finality of proceedings. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Darayo and Others vs. State of U.P. (1962) 1 SCR 574 , wherein it has been held that the principles of res-judicata will apply to proceedings under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment of Darayo is reproduced hereunder: “9. But, is the rule of res-judicata merely a technical rule or is it based on high public policy? Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment of Darayo is reproduced hereunder: “9. But, is the rule of res-judicata merely a technical rule or is it based on high public policy? If the rule of res-judicata itself embodies a principle of public policy which in turn is an essential part of the rule of law then the objection that the rule cannot be invoked where fundamental rights are in question may lose much of its validity. Now, the rule of res-judicata as indicated in S.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt some technical aspects, for instance the rule of constructive res-judicata may be said to be technical but the basis on which the said rule rests is founded on considerations of public policy. It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. If these two principles form the foundation of the general rule of res-judicata they cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32.” 30. It would also be appropriate to refer paragraph no. 39 of Smt. Asha Agarwal and Others vs. M/s Arvind & Co. and Others, 2015 All. C.J. 552 which reads as under: “39. It is well established that the principle of res-judicata enshrined under Section 11 C.P.C. is equally applicable in respect of the decisions rendered at successive stages of the suit. Thus, even interlocutory orders passed at different stages of a suit have the binding effect provided the decision is rendered on merits.” 31. In the present case, the petitioner has filed application 123Ga with a prayer to accept the rent deed on record which was rejected by the trial court. The order of the trial court was affirmed by the revision court on the ground that the rent deed is inadmissible in evidence as it is insufficiently stamped and is an unregistered document. In the present case, the petitioner has filed application 123Ga with a prayer to accept the rent deed on record which was rejected by the trial court. The order of the trial court was affirmed by the revision court on the ground that the rent deed is inadmissible in evidence as it is insufficiently stamped and is an unregistered document. Instead of challenging, the aforesaid two orders, petitioner acquiesced to the finding of the revision court that the rent deed is insufficiently stamped and preferred another application 155Ga with a prayer that the rent deed may be impounded and send to the authorities with a direction to accept the deficient stamp duty, compounding fee and penalty from the petitioner. The prayer made by the petitioner in Application 155Ga could have been made by him in application 123Ga since the petitioner knew that the document is insufficiently stamped and is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the above-referred cases, this court finds that Application155Ga is barred by principles of constructive res-judicata. 32. Thus, given the above discussion, this court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by the trial court as well as revision court in rejecting application 155Ga. 33. Consequently, for the reasons given above, the writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.