1 HN, J C.R.P.No.1628_2025 APHC010317512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1628/2025 Between: 1. VEJJU PAVANI,, W/O VEJJU ACHYUTHA KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O D NO 10-19-20, BRAHMAN STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. VUPPALURI INDIRA, W/O HARI BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D NO 4-54/1, KOMADAVOLU VILLAGE, ELURU. 2. BETHA VENKATA DURGA PRASADA RAO, S/O B RAMA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, BHAVISETTYVARIPETA, R/O D NO 12-8-11, ELURU ...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 toTo set aside the order of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru in OS No 140 of 2013 dated 26-03-2025 directing the draft sale deed dated 02-05-2012 to be marked as an exhibit. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru in OS No 140 of 2013 dated 26-03-2025 during the pendency of this petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P B NARASIMHA MURTY 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.1628_2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.140 of 2013, which is an intermediary order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the plaintiff and has filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance and execution of a sale deed in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 19.03.2012. 2. It is submitted that the plaintiff was ready and willing to comply with the obligations as fastened to the plaintiff by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 19.03.2012. However, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the plaintiff had prepared a draft sale deed and also purchased stamp papers worth Rs.54,570/- on 02.05.2012, and waited for the defendants to come forward and execute the sale deed at the Sub-Registrar Office on the same day. It is submitted that the defendants did not turn up for execution of the sale deed. 3. As such, the suit was filed seeking the relief of specific performance and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner intended to mark the draft sale deed, which was filed as an annexure to the plaint, along with other documents. The respondents objected on the ground that the draft sale deed could not be marked, as the document was neither registered nor properly stamped. 4. The learned Judge has considered the viability of marking the draft sale deed and rejected the attempt of the petitioner to mark the said document, 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.1628_2025 holding that the draft sale deed dated 02.05.2012 cannot be received in evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the endeavour of the plaintiff was to demonstrate before the trial Court that the petitioner had prepared a draft sale deed and was willing to complete his obligations under the agreement of sale, and that he had also purchased the requisite stamp duty. It is further submitted that, as the defendants were not coming forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff submitted a letter to the Tahsildar along with a copy of the challan dated 02.05.2012, seeking refund of the stamp duty paid. It is submitted that the unexecuted draft sale deed was proposed to be marked only to demonstrate the readiness and preparedness of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner could not have marked an unexecuted document which was not appropriately stamped. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant submits that the 1st defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant on 27.06.2013, and as such, the 1st defendant is not the owner of the property. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The short point for consideration is whether the plaintiff could have marked an unexecuted, unregistered, and deficitly stamped document as an exhibit. The documents on record would show that the plaintiff proposed to mark an unexecuted document only for the purpose of demonstrating before 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.1628_2025 the trial Court the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in fulfilling the obligations cast upon the plaintiff by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 19.03.2012. The learned Judge erred in rejecting marking of the draft sale deed. The primary document for maintaining the suit of the plaintiff is the agreement of sale dated 19.03.2012. The draft sale deed which is proposed to be marked is evidently not executed by any of the parties. The petitioner had also purchased stamp papers valued at Rs.54,570/- on 02.05.2012 by paying the challan. The endeavor of the plaintiff was to demonstrate his readiness and willingness and nothing beyond; no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if the draft sale deed dated 02.05.2012 is permitted to be marked as an exhibit. It is needless to mention that the said document shall be marked subject to proof and relevancy. 9. With this observation, the C.R.P is allowed. The order of the learned Judge passed in O.S No.140 of 2013 dated 26.03.2025 is hereby set aside. Considering the submission that the suit is pending from the year 2013, the learned trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose off the suit on merits preferably within a period of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:30.03.2026 NKA 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.1628_2025 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1628 of 2025 Date: 30.03.2026 NKA