B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 9-8-2004, made in i. A. No. 2877 of 2003 in O. S. No. 18 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil judge s Court, Anakapalle.

( 2 ) LEARNED Judge allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under order VIM Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil procedure to receive the documents. The document No. 1 that is sought to be filed is the sale agreement, dated 2-3-1995, and the document No. 2 is the sale deed, dated 16-10-1995. The petitioner herein filed counter in the trial Court contending that the document No. 1, sale agreement, dated 2-3-1995, is the possessory agreement and it has to be charged as a sale deed and it also requires registration. The application is filed belatedly to protract the litigation.

( 3 ) THE trial Court having examined the contents of the document found that the document No. 1 sought to be filed into the court is the agreement of sale, dated 2-3-1995, which ultimately culminated into sale deed, dated 16-10-1995, on which the stamp duty was paid. Learned Judge, accordingly allowed the application filed by the respondents/ defendants to receive the documents. The question as to whether the document No. 1 is the sale agreement, dated 2-3-1995, or possessory agreement is not required to be gone into at this stage. Learned Judge merely allowed the application to receive the documents into the court. Learned Judge, did not commit any error, much less, jurisdictional error in allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants to receive the documents into the Court.

( 4 ) I find no merit in this Civil Revision petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document