APHC010002912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 167/2022 Between: 1.DANDU REDDY SEKHAR, S/O.LATE. UPPUTHOLLA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.2-250-B-8-11-A- 5-2, RAJA NAGAR, NEERUGATTUVARIPALLE, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.UPPUTHOLLA SAROJAMMA, W/O.LATE. UPPUTHOLLA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NADIMPALLE,H/O.MATTIVARIPALLE VILLAGE, KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.) 2.UPPUTHOLLA ANANDA, S/O.LATE. UPPUTHOLLA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. NADIMPALLE,H/O.MATTIVARIPALLE VILLAGE, KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.) 3.UPPUTHOLLA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O.LATE. UPPUTHOLLA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NADIMPALLE,H/O.MATTIVARIPALLE VILLAGE, KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Decree 86 Order dated 26- 02-2020 passed in I.A.No. 28 of 2020 In O.S.No.189 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Prinicipal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to stay all further proceedings in OS No.189 of 2017 pending on the file of the court of the Prinicipal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District pending disposal of the main CRP before this Hon'ble court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.167 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2020 passed in IA.No.28 of 2020 in OS.No.189 of 2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, whereby the defendants filed an interlocutory application seeking to demark and reject the unregistered mortgage agreement dated 18.09.2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said document was marked as Ex.A1 and the learned Judge erred in allowing the I.A. and demarking Ex.A1. It is further submitted that the suit was filed for recovery of money, and the plaintiff was examined as PW1. During the course of examination, the petitioner marked Ex.A1, the unregistered mortgage agreement. 3. It is further submitted that the learned Judge held that Ex.A1 is not an agreement and it is only a simple mortgage deed, which requires registration and stamp duty and as such the same is not admissible in evidence without payment of stamp duty and penalty. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sirikonda Madhava Rao Vs.. N.Hemalatha & Ors1, wherein an identical issue was considered, and it was held that a document, once marked, cannot be demarked. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970 3 5. Notice sent to the respondents has been duly served. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondents when the matter is taken up for hearing. 6. The short point for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is Whether a document which is marked in evidence can be subject of demarking by way of an application under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC ? 7. A document once marked in evidence would has to be considered for all purposes, and its relevancy must be determined by the Court at the time of final adjudication on merits. The ground on which the learned Judge erred in allowing I.A.No.28 of 2020 is that Ex.A1 requires registration, payment of stamp duty and penalty. 8. Insofar as stamp duty and penalty is concerned, it was always open to the learned Judge to impound the document and send it for adjudication by the competent authority for payment of the deficit stamp duty, if any. An unregistered mortgage deed can also be considered for collateral purposes, apart from the other evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the suit. 9. A document, once marked, cannot be demarked by way of filing an application under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC. The Proof and relevancy of Ex.A1 is left open to be decided by the learned Judge, and all other contentions raised by the respondents shall be considered by the learned Judge while deciding the suit on merits. 4 10. With the above obserevation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated : 25.02.2026 KGM 5 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.167 of 2022 Dated 25.02.2026 KGM