APHC010436432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2467/2024 Between: 1. ALLAM PERAMMA, W/O. LATE ANANTHA RAMI REDDY, DR.NO.3- 166, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. ALLAM KRISHNA REDDY(D5),, S/O. LATE ANANTHA RAMI REDDY, DR.NO.3-166, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT . ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ALLAM GURAVA REDDY, (PLFF), S/O. LATE ANANTHARAMIREDDY, DR.NO.4-14, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. DAREDDY LINGAMMAD2, W/O. KOTI REDDY, DR.NO.3-33, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. NAGIREDDY LAKSHAMMAD3, W/O. PAPI REDDY, DR.NO. 10-124, ADIGOPALA VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. ALLAM RAMIREDDY D4, S/O. LATE ANANTHA RAMI REDDY, DR.NO.3-166, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. ALLAM VENKATA GURAVAREDDYD6, S/O. LATE ANANTHA RAMI REDDY, DR.NO.3-167, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GURAZALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICERV R O D7, MIRIYALA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. THE TAHSILDAR D8, KAREMPUDI VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 8. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER D9, GURAZALA, PALNADU 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 to allow the CRP by setting aside order dt.16.08.2024 in I.A.3/2023 in O.S.105/2017 on the file of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurazala, thereby allow the I.A.3/2023 in O.S. 105/2017 on the file of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurazala to de-exhibit the Ex.A1 partition list dt.21.08.2004 b) grant costs throughout and c)pass 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 to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. 105/2017 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.H.V.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. The defendants 1 and 5 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.08.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala. 3. The 1st respondent herein, being the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.105 of 2017 against the revision petitioners and others seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. In the plaint, it was pleaded that a partition list dated 21.08.2004 was executed, and a photocopy of the said partition deed is filed as one of the documents along with the plaint. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. A certified copy of the partition list dated 21.08.2004 was marked as Ex.A1. 4. The defendants 1 and 5 filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 under Order XIII Rule 3 to de-exhibit EX.A1. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the plaintiff got the certified copy of the partition list marked as Ex.A1; that the partition list is liable to be impounded; and that unless and until the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be looked into. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application. 5. The trial Court, by placing reliance upon Sadhu Ramesh vs. K.Srinivasa Rao reported in 2019 (2019) L.S. 69 (A.P), dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that Ex.A1, the partition list, requires stamp duty and registration. The trial Court failed to consider the said aspect and dismissed the application. 7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Whether the partition list, Ex.A1 dated 21.08.2004, is properly stamped or not will be adjudicated at a proper stage. Merely because the document is marked as Ex.A1, it does not mean that the contents of the document are proved. 9. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 prescribes that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. 10. Thus, a reading of Section 33 of the Act casts a duty upon the Court to examine whether Ex.A1 is properly stamped or not. If the document requires stamp duty and is not duly stamped, the Court may not rely upon the same, unless the same is impounded. 11. In Sadhu Ramesh case, it was held that once the document is admitted in evidence rightly or wrongly with or without objection, it is not permissible for the Court, including appellate or revisional Court, to reject the same on the ground that it has not been duly stamped. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Grounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another1, held as follows:. “…. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. 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 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 1 (2003) 8 SCC 752 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." 13. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 16.08.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, warranting interference. However, the learned trial Court shall consider the observations in R.V.E. Venkatachala Grounder case vis-à-vis Ex.A1. The learned trial Court shall also look into the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay vs. Union of India2. 14. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 20.07.2026 SNI 2 2023 INSC 1030= (2023) 17 SCC 455 193 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2467 of 2024 Dated: 20.07.2026 SNI