Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :23.06.2026 Date of uploading :30.06.2026 APHC010721412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 59/2023 Between: 1. VATTIGUNTA RAMA THULASAMMA, W/O. LATE CHENGAIUH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 3, 4TH STREET, VENKATESWA PURAM, ICE HOUSE, TRIPLICANE,CHENNAI 600014. 2. KANDULA RAJAMMA @RAJESWARI, W/O. SRINIVAS, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 3, 4TH STREET, VENKATESWA PURAM, ICE HOUSE, TRIPLICANE,CHENNAI 600014. 3. PEMMASANI LAKSHMI,, W/O. KUMAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 143, 4TH STREET, VENKATESWA PURAM, ICE HOUSE, TRIPLICANE,CHENNAI 600014 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. VATTIGUNTA BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/o. P Suresh, D/o. Yanadaiah, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Property Holder, Neelayapalem Village, Sangam Mandalam, Nellore 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 to call for the records in I.A 401/2022 in 0.5 157/2015 and order Dt.14- 10-2022 on the file of PrI. Junior Civil Judge Court, Kovuru, SPSR Nellore District and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.5 157/2015 pending on the file of PH. Junior Civil Judge Court, Kovuru, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the main CRP and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D BALAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K.NARSIREDDY The Court made the following order: Heard Sri D.Balakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K.Narsireddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Assailing the order dated 14.10.2022 in I.A.No.401 of 2022 in O.S.No.157 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, the above revision was filed. 3. The revision petitioners, being the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.157 of 2015 against the respondent herein seeking a declaration that the registered settlement deed dated 29.03.2003 executed by Sri Vattigunta Basavaiah Naidu in favour of the defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. 4. During the trial, the plaintiffs marked Exs.A6 receipt (unstamped) and Ex.A7 agreement of sale executed on sufficient stamp papers and also not registered were marked through the evidence of P.W.1. Page 3 of 6 5. The defendant filed I.A.No.401 of 2022 under Order XIII Rule 3 r/w 151 C.P.C. to de-exhibit Ex.A6 and Ex.A7. The 2nd respondent/plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application. 6. By an order dated 14.10.2022, the trial Court allowed the interlocutory application and de-exhibited Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 from the evidence of P.W.1. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that once the documents are admitted in evidence, they cannot be de-exhibited. The procedure under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act was not followed. The said aspect was not considered by the trial Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial Court considered all the aspects and de-exhibited the documents. 9. The point for consideration is: Whether Ex.A6-receipt (unstamped), and Ex.A7-agreement of sale, (insufficiently stamped and unregistered), can subsequently be de-exhibited? 10. The answer to the above question is no longer res judicata. 11. In R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “... the objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence 1 2003 (8) SCC 752 or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.” 12. In A.P.Lay vs. Gurram Rama Rao2, a learned Single Judge of the Composite High Court held that the Court has got right to de-exhibit a document when its attention was drawn to the inadmissibility of the document. 13. In Sirikonda Madhava Rao vs. N.Hemalatha and others3, the learned Single of Telangana High Court held as follows: “Merely because a document has been marked as a „an exhibit‟, the objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision.” 14. The trial Court, in this case at hand, by considering the precedents on this aspect, recorded a finding that Ex.A7 is an unregistered agreement of sale and was not executed on proper stamp paper, and it is hit by Section 35 2 2017(3) L.S. 139 3 2022(5) ALT 70 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In respect of Ex.A6, receipt, the trial Court recorded that it requires stamp duty and penalty. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs will make an application seeking impounding of the documents. 16. Given the discussion supra, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 14.10.2022 in I.A.No.401 of 2022 in O.S.No.157 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 23.06.2026 SNI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 174 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.59 of 2023 Dated: 23.06.2026 SNI