APHC010137972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Chapala Balaji Prathikondala Rao and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 613/2024 ...PETITIONER AND Prathikondala Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): G VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 26.12.2023, passed in O.S.No.264 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Court, Ongole. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The facts that lead to filing of this revision petition by the 2nd defendant, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The plaintiffs brought the suit against the defendants 2 to 7 to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 within time to be fixed by the Court in terms of the suit agreement of sale, dated 19.05.2014, at the expenses of the plaintiffs and in default thereof, the Court to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 for and on behalf of the defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiffs alternatively prayed to direct the defendants 2 to 7 to refund the sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit, i.e., 07.09.2015, till the date of realization. The suit was resisted by the 2nd defendant by filing written statement. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 b. After filing affidavit for examination-in-chief of PW1, the suit stood posted to 08.12.2017 for cross-examination of PW1. The docket order, dated 03.11.2017, of the trial Court reads as follows: “Chief affidavit of PW 1 is filed. Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. For cross-examination of PW1, call on 08.12.2017.” c. The learned counsel for the parties mainly raised the following objections: (i) The numerical figure exhibit A1 is found changed to exhibit A2; (ii) The evidence affidavit does not contain the signature/initial of the then Presiding Officer of the Court; (iii) The suit agreement of sale cannot be marked for want of registration. 4. The trial Court overruled the objections and ordered that the documents, exhibits A1 to A31, marked on 03.11.2017, and the evidence affidavit of PW1 be sent to the predecessor for obtaining his signature and to return the same. 5. Hence, this revision petition was filed by the 2nd defendant. 6. Before proceeding further, it is apt to excerpt Order XIII, rule 4 which reads as under: “4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the documents, (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialed by the Judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialed by the Judge.” 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2nd defendant contended that the document sought to be marked is an unstamped and unregistered agreement of sale and hence, without payment of the stamp duty, the same is inadmissible in evidence. He further contended that the mandatory conditions of Order XIII, rule 4 CPC had not been complied and hence, the order of the District Court marking the documents is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on various decisions. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 9. In Syed Yousuf Ali vs. Yousuf and Ors.1, it was held as follows: “24. According to Order 13 Rule 3 CPC the Court may at any stage of the suit, reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds for such rejection. Order 13 Rule 4 CPC prescribes the endorsement to be made on the document when a document is admitted in evidence. According to it, there shall be an endorsement on every document which has been admitted in evidence containing number and title of the suit, the name of the person producing the document, the date on which it was produced and a statement of its having been so admitted and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. 25. xx xx xx 26. In the present case, the trial Court did not record any statement as to the admissibility as required under Order 13 Rule 4(1)(d) and there was absolutely no judicial determination about the admissibility of possessory contract of sale, in evidence. In such a case, when an objection was raised, the Court is under obligation to record reasons in admitting the document in evidence or reject the same even if it is marked for numerical purpose or for convenience of reference, by following the procedure under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. The trial Court in the present case, only on the ground that once the document is marked as exhibit, the same cannot be challenged in view of interdict contained under Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act. The trial Court did not draw distinction between marking of document for convenience of reference 1 2016 (3) ALD 235 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 and judicial determination of admissibility of the document, as no objection was raised as to the admissibility of the document at the time, it was marked, committed an error in considering the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. 4th defendant before the trial Court. 30. The objection as to admissibility may be raised by filing a petition to reject the document on the ground that it is inadmissible or by oral objection during pendency of the suit. Here, though no judicial order can be passed on the memo still the oral objection raised by the learned counsel as to the admissibility of the document is required to be considered and if the Court finds that the objection raised by the learned counsel as to the admissibility is sustainable, the course open to the Court is to reject the document exercising power under Order 13 Rue 3 CPC, merely because no application is filed under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, the Court is not precluded from passing such order.” 10. The trial Court overruled the objection regarding admissibility of the document, i.e., agreement of sale on the ground of want of registration in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act after thoroughly discussing the decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and the same does not require interference. 11. Rule 113 of the A.P Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 reads as follows: 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 “113. (New) Evidence:- (1) xx xxx (2) All additions, alterations, etc., in the deposition shall be attested by the presiding Judge. Note:- Where the evidence is taken down in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge or form the dictation of the Judge directly on a type writer and Judge shall sign or initial each page as soon as it is completed. (3) xx xxx (4) xx xxx (5) xx xxx (6) xx xxx 7. MARKING AND CERTIFYING OF EXHIBITS: a) Where a party/witness wants to rely on a document which has already been filed in the Court, the same shall be referred and identified by its Serial number, description, and the date as given in the list of document filed in the Court. b) The party in his Affidavit shall list out the documents referred in the Affidavit with its Sl.No. Description and date in the last para of the Affidavit. c) The Court shall consider the admissibility of the documents, referred in the Affidavit of Examination-in-Chief and endorse on the documents, if admitted in evidence, the following particulars Viz., i) The number and title of the suit. ii) The name of the person who filed the document and the exhibit number given by the court. (iii) The date on which it was produced. (iv) The Statement of its having been admitted. 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 And the endorsement shall be signed or initialed by the Judge. d) Where any document is not admitted there shall be endorsement on the document that it has not been admitted and the endorsement shall be signed or initialed by the Judge e) Where the Court decides to admit a document subject to objection, the Court shall make an endorsement to that effect on the document and give an Exhibit Number. f) The Court shall note the corresponding Exhibit numbers against the entries of the documents in the list given in the last para of the Affidavit. g) Where documents are produced for Cross Examination of a Witness of the other party or where a document is handed over to a witness in the Cross-examination to refresh his memory, the Commissioner shall mark them as Exhibits for identification.” 11. Insofar as the signature of the Presiding Officer on the evidence affidavit of PW1 as well as the documents marked as exhibits A1 to A31 are concerned, since it is a procedural aspect, but due to some lapse, the initial/signature of the Presiding Officer was not inscribed, the same can be obtained and the said lapse does not go to the root of the matter to challenge the illegality of the available evidence of PW1 or marking the documents as Exs.A1 to A31, particularly in view of the order on the docket of the suit signed by the concerned presiding officer on 03.11.2017 to the effect that ‘chief affidavit of PW1 was filed and 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.613 of 2024 exhibits A1 to A31 were marked and posted the matter for cross- examination of PW1 on 08.12.2017. It reflects judicial decision taken by the Court. What is left to be done is to manually carry out only the procedure. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.21-01-2025 RAR