ORDER :

1. The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 22.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 187 of 2022 in O.S. No. 114 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 114 of 2010.

3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 114 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs.

4. For clarity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to with their status in the suit in O.S. No. 114 of 2010, i.e. to say the petitioners will be referred to as ‘the defendants’ and the respondent will be referred to as the plaintiff.

5. During the course of trial, the 4th defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked the Photostat copy of the title deed passbook said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff by Tahsildar Kadapa as Ex.B18. Since the plaintiff raised objection for marking the Photostat of the said document, it was marked subject to objection considering the submissions made by the defendants that the original of Ex.B18 in the custody of the plaintiff and Ex.B18 is referred in Ex.A31 marked by the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 187 of 2022 under Order-13, Rule-3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to de-exhibit Ex.B18 from the evidence, contending that Ex.B18 does not either belong or pertain to him and the 4th defendant without following the procedure contemplated under law for marking secondary evidence, produced a fake and fabricated Xerox copy and got it marked as Ex.B18. The reason assigned while marking Ex.B18 that there was a reference regarding original of Ex.B18 title deed pass book in Ex.A31 gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife, is not true and correct and the reference in Ex.A31 pertains to pass book No. M300342 but not pertains to patta No. 300 and the plaintiff never claimed that patta No. 300 pertains to him or to the suit property.

7. The 4th defendant filed counter denying the averments of the petition, inter-alia contending that, the petition filed under Order-13, Rule-3 CPC has no application to the present facts of the case, since the inadmissible document within the meaning of the said proviso is the document that is hit by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act, whereas the present document is not hit by any of such statutory restrictions. It is further contended that since the document was marked subject to objection, the question as to whether the document can be received in evidence as secondary evidence is a matter to be decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit and more over the document was referred to in the gift deed got marked by the plaintiff vide Ex.A31. There are no bona fides in the petition and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

8. The Court below having heard both the parties, allowed the petition.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred this revision, inter alia contending that, since Ex.B18 has already been marked subject to objection, the same cannot be de-exhibited and the defendants have laid foundational evidence on facts for admission of secondary evidence. However, the Court below erred in demarking the document. Hence, prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order.

10. Heard Sri Amanchi Royal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.

11. Sri Amanchi Royal, learned counsel, in elaboration would submit that when once a document was exhibited the Courts cannot de-exhibit and moreover Ex.B18 was marked subject to objection and its admissibility should have been decided at the time of final dis