ORDER :

C.R.P.No.496 of 2020 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.01.2020 in I.A.No.598 of 2019 in O.S.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, by which the petition filed under Section 33 r/w Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 CPC to send the unregistered agreement of sale dated 04.04.1988 to the Stamp Collector i.e. District Registrar, East Godavari, Kakinada for the purpose of impounding or levying proper stamp duty, if needed, was dismissed.

2. C.R.P.No.497 of 2020 is filed against the order dated 29.01.2020 in I.A.No.597 of 2019 in O.S.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, by which the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) & Section 151 CPC to receive the documents 1) unregistered agreement of sale dated 04.04.1988 executed by Yandamuri Bhadramma and 2) original ownership certificate issued by MRO, Ramachandrapuram in the name of Yarra Narasimha Rao, on behalf of the petitioner/1st defendant, was dismissed.

3. Though the reliefs claimed in both petitions are different, since they are connected in the sense that the relief claimed in I.A.No.598 of 2017 is subject to the relief claimed in I.A.No.597 of 2019, a common order is being passed.

4. In I.A.No.597 of 2019, the petitioner/first defendant contended that since he filed written statement opposing the suit for partition filed by the first respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the suit schedule property consists of the land purchased by their father and also the land of Ac.0.02 cents in respect of which patta was granted in his favour and also some extent of property which he purchased under an agreement of sale dated 04.04.1988, it is essential to file these two material documents in his evidence to prove his defence, but he could not file them earlier in his evidence when he was examined. These two documents were filed by his son, who was examined as DW.5 in his evidence along with his chief examination affidavit.

5. In I.A.No.598 of 2019 the petitioner/1st defendant contended that since the said unregistered agreement of sale cannot be received in evidence for want of necessary stamp duty, unless the document is impounded, he cannot establish his defence.

6. Both petitions were opposed by the first respondent/plaintiff, but no counter was filed in I.A.No.597 of 2019. The first respondent/plaintiff filed counter in I.A.No.598 of 2019 stating that the petition was filed at the fag end of the matter, after completion of the trial with a view to procrastinate the suit and that even if the said unregistered agreement of sale is impounded, it will not create any right or title whatsoever to the petitioner and thus no purpose would be served by impounding the document.

7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed both petitions. Insofar as the petition to grant leave to file documents is concerned, the trial Court observed that the petitioner did not state in his written statement that the agreement of sale or the ownership certificate were in the custody of his son, but on the other hand he stated in his evidence that they are with the plaintiff and suddenly he changed his version and, therefore, the reasons stated by him for the delay in filing the documents are not genuine and real. Insofar as the petition to send the agreement of sale for impounding is concerned, the trial Court observed that no purpose would be served by sending the document as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the provisions of Section 38 of Indian Stamps and Registration Act, 1908 as the suit is filed for partition and that if the petitioner, had any interest to send the document for impounding, he ought to have filed the petition at the earliest possible time, but he failed to do so for the reasons best known to him.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the existence of the documents has been