1. This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.21-06-213 in I.A.No.339 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 2007 of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners A.Manjunath. Although notices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and the 1st respondent is represented by Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate, none appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 9 in the above suit. The 1st respondent herein filed the above suit against petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration of its title to the plaint schedule property and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

4. Written statement was filed by petitioners opposing the grant of relief to 1st respondent. Issues were framed and trial commenced.

5. One Elisha Prabhakar, Secretary to the 1st respondent filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 02-12-2010. In the said affidavit, he had referred to several documents. On 02-12-2010 the Court below marked the same as Exs.A-1 to A-12. Although on that day an objection was raised by the learned counsel for 3rd respondent as regards marking of Ex.A-1, which is said to be a compromise deed dt.08-08-1998 entered into by 1st respondent with 2nd respondent, the Court below stated that the said document was marked subject to objection and the same would be seen during the final hearing of the suit.

6. The petitioners therefore filed I.A.No.339 of 2010 in the said suit stating that 1st respondent had filed the chief-examination affidavit of P.W.1 under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC on 02-12-2010; the Court below had received the same and simultaneously marked the documents without posting the same for further date of hearing regarding marking of documents; before admitting the documents filed by P.W.1 in evidence, the date for hearing objections as to their admissibility should be given and there should be judicial determination of the same; and since such an opportunity was not given prior to marking of documents, and they are inadmissible documents, the Court below should provide an opportunity to both sides before marking documents and judicially determine their admissibility. This application was filed under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 r/w sec.151 CPC.

7. The said application was dismissed by order dt.21-06-2013 by the Court below stating that the documents have already been marked, therefore this application has become infructious and is liable to be dismissed and that the objections of the petitioners, if any, would be considered during arguments.

8. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that this procedure followed by the Court below is contrary to law; that where a question as to admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been duly stamped or insufficiently stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence; that Ex.A-1 is an improperly stamped document and could not have been marked by the Court below without deciding whether or not it is admissible in evidence. He contended that once documents are filed along with affidavits in the form of chief-examination, the trial Court shall give a specific date for the purpose of marking of the documents in the presence of counsel for both parties and then decide on the admissibility of the said documents, judicially determine it before marking them, and then a specific endorsement of the Judge concerned should be made to the effect that they are admitted in evidence.

9. He relied on Vemi Reddy Kota Reddy Vs. Vemi Reddy Prabhakar Reddy (2004(2) ALD 627), Gaddam Varalaxmi Vs. Surakanti Gupta and another (2012(5) ALD 241) and T.Basavaraju (Died) per L.Rs. and others Vs. T.Nagaratnam and others (2006(3) ALD 838) and Setti Siddamma Vs. S.Ramulu and other (2004(6) ALT 418).

10. The learned counsel for 1st respondent