( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Rajendra, the counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Challa ajay Kumar, the counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiffs had preferred this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by an order made by the II Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 902 of 2003 in O. S. No. 595 of 2003, dated 10-09-2003. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the said application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to impound the document Ex. A-5 dated 18-08-1999 marked on 23-07-2003 by reviewing the Order and pass such other suitable orders. The learned Judge allowed the said application and directed the section to put up the report relating to Ex. A-5 for the assessment of stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

( 3 ) SRI B. Rajendra, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction and the learned Judge should have dismissed the said application since the same was marked as Ex. A-5. When the document was already admitted by the Court, there is no question of ordering impounding of such a document. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. Elaborate submissions were made relating to several factual aspects which had transpired before the Court below. The learned counsel also specifically pointed out that on the said date a request was made by the counsel representing the respondent herein and this aspect clearly goes to show that the ground of mala fide intention or the ground of playing fraud which are being canvassed, cannot be sustained at all.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent- defendant had taken this Court through the impugned order; the reasons recorded in the impugned order and also the reasons explained in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application before the court below and also had taken this Court through the contents of paras 2 and 3 of the additional affidavit filed in this regard. The learned counsel would maintain that when a ground of mala fide intention or a ground of fraud or the grounds of like nature are raised and if prima facie the Court is satisfied that the marking of a document or admitting a document had been done by adopting such methods, the bar that such question cannot be agitated after marking of the document would not come into play at all. In other words, what the learned counsel contends is that such matters are to be treated on a different footing and always definitely the courts are having inherent powers to recall such orders either by way of review or otherwise. The learned counsel also pointed out that marking of Ex. A-5 was done in a clandestine way when the counsel was engaged in another Court and immediately an objection was raised even by filing a memo and subsequent thereto by moving an appropriate application. All these facts may have also to be taken into consideration and inasmuch as the learned Judge had reviewed the Order by recalling the order of marking ex. A-5 for the purpose of impounding, this court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction need not disturb the same. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard. As can be seen from the proceedings, the Civil Revision petition was admitted on 17-10-2003 and interim suspension was granted in C. M. P. 21210 of 2003. There cannot be any controversy in relation to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for therevision petitioners to the effect that after a document is admitted and exhibited, the question that the document is liable to be stamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be raised. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, l. Sambasiva Rao v. T. Balakotiah, Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum, Pale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document