This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.03.2010 in O.S.No.43 of 2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulavada, Karimnagar District, wherein it has been held that Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents marked through D.W.1 were deficiently stamped and accordingly directed the concerned party to take steps for impounding the documents either before the Court or before the concerned authorities.

2. The respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulavada, Karimnagar District, impleading the petitioners herein as defendants seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining them from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring Ac.0.04 ½ gts of land in Sy.No.43/A situated at Kurikyala Village, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District. According to the plaint averments, the respondent-plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in exclusive possession of the said property. His name is also reflected in the revenue records, including the Pattadar Pass Book. The petitioners-defendants are strangers to the said land and they have no right or interest whatsoever over the said property. The respondent-plaintiff’s possession was sought to be disturbed by the petitioners-defendants because he refused to sell the land to them.

3. It appears that the 1st petitioner-defendant No.1 has not chosen to file written statement. The 2nd petitioner-defendant No.2 filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the respondent-plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the 1st petitioner-defendant No.1, who is her husband, and on payment of the total sale consideration, possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the 1st petitioner-defendant No.1. Thereupon he constructed a house after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat and thus the petitioners-defendants acquired the right over the suit schedule property and are in enjoyment of the same.

4. After the evidence on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff was closed, the 1st petitioner-defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 on 23.10.2009 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents, which are agreements of sale dated 20.10.2001, 1.3.2002 and 23.7.2003, respectively, were marked through him. Later, during the course of examination of the 2nd petitioner-defendant No.2 as DW.2, an objection was taken regarding the admissibility of the said documents on the ground that they were deficiently stamped. Considering the said objection, the Court below found that the said documents are deficiently stamped and accordingly passed the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 with a direction to the concerned party to take steps for impounding the documents either before the Court or before the concerned authorities.

5. Heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants as well as Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

6. Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants contends that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the documents in question were marked through D.W.1 on 23.10.2009 without any objection from the respondent-plaintiff and hence the said documents were admitted in evidence. When once the documents were so marked, it is not permissible for the same Court to impound the said documents as per the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act (for brevity “the Act”). According to him, the only course left open to the aggrieved party is to raise the said dispute, if an appeal is preferred against the said order.

7. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY v. SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL (AIR 2007 SC 637) and also a judgment of this Court in AKKIREDDI NAGAYAMMA AND ANOTHER v. ADHIKARI APPALANAIDU (2011 (2) ALD 71)in support of the proposition that the Court is not competent to