ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Challenge in this civil revision petition, at the instance of defendants, is to the docket order, dated 7.8.2018, in OS No. 596 of 2013 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the Trial Court'), partly allowing the objections of the petitioners against marking of the photostat copies of sale deeds and partly rejecting their contentions against marking of original memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14.12.2010 holding that the said memorandum can be marked in evidence after paying stamp duty and penalty, if any.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed OS No. 596 of 2013 against the defendants alleging that they borrowed from her Rs. 5,00,000/- on different occasions and executed promissory notes and further, on 14.12.2010 first defendant agreed to mortgage her immovable property described in the plaint schedule by way of equitable mortgage by depositing two sale deeds with the plaintiff with an intent to create equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property.

3. The plaintiff averred that the defendants deposited photostat copies of the title deeds on the pretext that the original sale deeds were misplaced. Later, the defendants failed to discharge the loan and, hence, the suit for passing preliminary decree directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 8,60,000/- and, on their failure to do so, for passing a final decree for sale of the mortgage hypotheca. The defendants contested the suit.

4. While so, when the matter was coming up for plaintiff's evidence and when the plaintiff sought to mark certain documents through PW 1, the defendants raised an objection for marking of memorandum of title deeds and photostat copies of the sale deeds. The defendants filed objection memo contending that the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14.12.2010 is not admissible in evidence because in the said memorandum, the name of one of the executants is mentioned as Guthala Suryanarayana, but in the signature part his name is mentioned as Guthala Suryanarayana Rao. They further contended, under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act of 1882'), equitable mortgage will be created only by deposit of original title deeds, but not photostat copies and therefore, in the instant case, valid mortgage is not created and hence the said memorandum and the photostat copies of the title deeds are not admissible in evidence.

5. The Trial Court, as already observed supra, partly upheld and partly negatived the contentions of the defendants. The objection against marking of the original memorandum dated 14.12.2010 is concerned, it observed that the genuinity and validity of the said document cannot be decided at the preliminary stage and the defendants were at liberty to submit their objections at the time of marking of the document, which would be decided at the time of disposal of the main case. On this observation the Trial Court embarked upon marking the original memorandum dated 14.12.2010. The title deeds are concerned, the Trial Court held that the photostat copies of the sale deeds cannot be marked. Thus, ultimately the Trial Court allowed marking of original memorandum dated 14.12.2010 on payment of stamp duty and penalty while rejecting the photostat copies of the sale deeds.

Hence, the civil revision petition.

6. Heard Sri S. Sriramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was served on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent.

7. Severely fulminating the order of the Trial Court, learned Counsel would argue that the Trial Court committed a grave error by treating the memorandum dated 14.12.2010 and photostat copies of the sale deeds as two separate entities of the mortgage transaction and then admitting the memorandum in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty on the ground that it is an original document while rejecting the sale deeds as they are photostat copies. He would argue that the memoran