(Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 30-6-2006 and made in I.A.No.269/2006 in O.S.No.275 of 2000 on the file of the court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.)

Common Order:

1. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioners and Sri Tirumala Rao, Counsel representing Ms. Hema Jaiswal, Counsel for respondent.

2. C.R.P.No.3538/2006 is filed as against the order dated 30-6-2006 made in I.A.No.269/2006 in O.S.No.275/2000 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. C.R.P.S.R.No.1473/2007 is filed along with an application C.M.P.No.379/2007 to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order in I.A.No.270/2006 in O.S.No.275/2000 on the ground that both these applications were disposed of by a common order. Hence, dispense with application is hereby ordered.

3. Inasmuch as both these C.R.Ps. arise out of a Common Order made in I.A.No.269/2006 and 270/2006 in O.S.No.275/2000 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, both these Revisions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

4. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid applications I.A.No.269/2006 and 270/2006 praying for reopening of the suit and to recall D.W.1 and D.W.2 to mark the document dated 12-8-1996. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons allowed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents in the said applications, the plaintiffs in the suit, preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The Counsel on record made certain submissions relating to the nature of the document, the admissibility or inadmissibility and at what stage the said question may have to be decided and placed reliance on certain decisions.

6. The respondent in both these Revisions as petitioner in I.A.Nos.269/2006 and 270/2006 in O.S.No.275/2000 aforesaid had taken a stand that the evidence on his side was closed and the original partition deed to be marked in the evidence. It is also stated that the Counsel appearing on the other side had taken an objection for the marking of the said document and hence the respondent in these Revision moved an application to send the said document to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal for impounding and the said document was impounded and after impounding, the document in question was sent to the Court and in such circumstances he may be permitted to reopen the suit and recall D.W.1 and D.W.2 for the purpose of marking the said document. The same was resisted by the Revision petitioners with all vehemence on the ground that the document in question suffers from the deficit stamp duty and penalty and even if such defect is cured by virtue of impounding, the payment of stamp duty and penalty, if any cannot cure the defect of registration since it is an award made by arbitrators dated 12-8-1996 which requires compulsory registration.

7. It is not in serious controversy that during the course of trial, I.A.No.480/2005 was filed to send the document in question dated 12-8-1996 for the purpose of impounding and the said application was allowed granting some time for impounding. But however, since within the time the same was not completed, another application I.A.No.630/2005 was filed to condone the delay in getting the document impounded and the said application was dismissed and as against the said order, C.R.P.No.6059/2005 was filed which was allowed granting further time and accordingly the said document was impounded and in view of the same, these applications to reopen the suit and recall D.W.1 and D.W.2 for the purpose of marking the said document were allowed.

8. The relevant portion of the order in C.R.P.No.6059/2005 dated 2-12-2005 reads as hereunder:

“No doubt, the order, dated 20-7-2005 has not been complied with. Having allowed the application, vide docket order dated 20.7.2005, the Court below ought to have given sufficient time enabling the party to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer to get the d