( 1 ) THE petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 52 of 1996, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The recording of evidence is in progress. During the course of his evidence, the fourth respondent, who is the defendant No. 3 in the suit, filed documents Exs. 1 to B-27. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of Ex. B-1. According to them, though it is named as an agreement of sale, for all practical purposes, it is a sale deed and is inadmissible in evidence, since it was registered. It was also contended that the Mandal revenue Officer treated the same as sale deed and collected stamp duty upon the document. The petitioners filed I. A. No. 251 of 2004, raising this objection. The trial Court rejected the I. A. through its order dated 1. 10. 2004. Hence this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court ought to have decided the question of admissibility of Ex. B-1, before the evidence of the fourth respondent is concluded and it is impermissible to p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document