APHC010162212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 874/2025 Between: Boddeda Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Boddeda Bhaskara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.76 of 2002, before the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalle, against the respondent herein. It appears that the respondent had filed a deed of partition, as one of the documents in his defense. As an objection was raised against the marking of the said document, the Trial Court had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, to impound the said document and to return it after payment of appropriate fee and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner 2 herein had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by way of C.R.P.No.5809 of 2012. 2. A Learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had taken the view that impounding of document would have to be done by the Collector and not the Revenue Divisional Officer and directed the appropriate officer to take up the process of impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty. 3. The petitioner herein again approached the Trial Court by way of I.A.No.47 of 2023, contending that the document in question should be demarked as there has been such a direction by the Learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 4. The Trial Court, after going through the said Judgment, had held that there was no such direction and dismissed the said application, by an Order, dated 30.12.2024. 5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. Sri Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the document, even otherwise could not have been produced and marked as an exhibit in as much as the appropriate stamps had not been paid on the document. 7. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner has been raised even in the earlier round of litigation and has now been 3 settled by way of the Order of the Learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in C.R.P.No.5809 of 2012. 8. In the circumstances, there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P. No.874 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 25.04.2025 BSM