APHC010103342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 465/2024 Between: 1. MANNAVA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE NAIDUMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. FARMER, R/O. GOTTIPADU VILLAGE, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. MANNAVA NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. FARMER, R/O. GOTTIPADU VILLAGE, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PULLELA AKILANDAMMA, W/o. Janardhana Rao, Aged 70 years, R/o. Gottipadu Village, Pattipadu Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Order, Dt. 26.12.2023 passed in LA No.723 of 2023 in O.S No.724/2016 on the file of the court of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, the above named petitioner begs to prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 file of the Court of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, district, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 ORDER: The defendants/petitioners herein have filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.12.2023 in I.A.No.723 of 2023 in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.723 of 2023 filed under Order XIII, Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC by the petitioners/defendants to demark and reject Ex.A4. 2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking the relief of declaration along with recovery of possession of a vacant site against the petitioners herein/defendants. 3. The petitioners herein/defendants filed a written statement in the said suit specifically contending that they do not admit the alleged partition list said to have been executed between the 1st petitioner’s father and his brother, Seshaiah. The said document was marked as Ex.A4 on behalf of the plaintiff, subject to an objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A4 is not a partition list, but it is a settlement deed, which requires stamp duty and registration. As such, it was contended that the said partition list cannot be marked, as it requires stamp duty and registration. But, however, the plaintiff got the same marked as Ex.A4. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.723 of 2023 under Order XIII, Rule 4 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Court below to de-mark and reject Ex.A4 and to eschew the evidence relating 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 to Ex.A4 from the evidence of PW1 on the ground that it is not a partition list but it is a settlement deed and it requires stamp duty and registration. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 5. Heard Mr.K.Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent. 6. The admitted facts in the present case are that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2016, duly enclosing the said partition list alleged to have been executed between the father of the 1st defendant and his father’s brother Seshaiah dated 01.06.1954. Immediately, in the year 2016, the defendants filed a written statement objecting the said partition list filed along with the plaint, contending that the same was created and brought into existence by the plaintiff and her husband, Janardhana Rao, for the purpose of filing the suit. Though such an objection was raised at the time of filing of the written statement itself, the petitioners/defendants, having kept quiet for all these years, at the stage of arguments came up with an application in I.A.No.723 of 2023 seeking to de-mark and reject Ex.A4 and to eschew the evidence relating to Ex.A4 from the evidence of PW1. The trial Court, after duly considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as follows: “….in any suit or other proceedings, consideration relating to de- marking or de-exhibiting any document cannot arise and Courts cannot exercise their powers under Section 151 C.P.C. for such purpose. If such demarking or de-exhibiting is permitted, it amounts to eschewing 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 evidence on record, which has been brought out by the parties. Therefore, this practice of demarking or de-exhibiting documents seems to be quite unhealthy and it is being followed in trial Courts more often that not without considering the effect and consequences of such practice. Introducing any document in evidence by a party cannot be deemed an empty formality. It has its own implications and as well as consequences. Apparently, these factors are being followed in breach in practice.” 7. Further, the trial Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Javer Chand And Others vs Pukhraj Surana1, held that once a document is admitted by the Court, demarcation of the said document does not arise. Hence, Ex.A4 cannot be demarked at this stage; however, as contended by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants, even though the said document was marked by the Court, it has no evidentiary value at the time of appreciation of evidence, even for collateral purposes. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order of this Court in CRP No.2750 of 2022, dated 03.07.2023, wherein it was held as follows: “..if a document which requires registration, stamp duty but not registered and does not bear required stamp duty is marked, the same can be demarked for wrongful exercise of the jurisdiction. Since no observation is taken on the admissibility of document with regard to admissibility of the document.” 9. However, as in the said case, no such objection regarding admissibility of the document was taken at the initial stage, the matter was remanded to the 1 1961 AIR 1655 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 trial Court with a direction to decide the admissibility of the documents, and if found to require registration and stamp duty, to de-mark the documents, with liberty to receive them in evidence if the defect is curable. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment in Javer Chand and Ors., Pukhraj Surana (referred supra), wherein it was held as follows: “Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidnece, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.” 11. However, the facts of the said cases are not applicable to the present case, as the petitioners/defendants had taken an objection at the time of filing of the written statement itself. In such circumstances, nothing prevented the petitioners/defendants to file such an application immediately after marking of the said document. However, having waited until the suit was coming up for arguments, they filed the said application I.A.No.723 of 2023 only to drag on the proceedings. When the said Ex.A4 is admittedly a document which requires registration, the said document has no evidentiary value, as rightly pointed by the trial Court, at the time of appreciation of evidence, even for 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.465 of 2024 colleteral purposes. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners/defendants are at liberty to raise the said issue at the time of their arguments. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.12.2025 KGR