The trial Court cannot revisit document admissibility issues already determined by a higher court, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel on record for revision petitioners, and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel on record for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the suit.

4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for declaration that they are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the suit claim, issues were framed, trial commenced and the matter was posted for evidence of P.W-1 on 21.06.2019; that during the chief-examination of P.W-1, certain documents were sought to be marked which include unregistered sale deeds dated 23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and 09.06.1974; that defendant No.2 filed a memo dated 26.06.2019 raising objection with regard to marking of the said documents; that the trial Court considering the objection raised by defendant No.2 accorded permission to the plaintiffs to mark the documents subject to impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty; and accordingly, the said documents were impounded with required stamp duty; and the trial Court ordered that the said documents be received in evidence for collateral purpose, with liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the witness with regard to admissibility and genuinity of the said documents.

5. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 filed Revision vide CRP.No.1758 of 2019 and this Court, on due consideration of the contentions raised by both the parties in the said CRP and also considering the legal position and referring to various judgments, has held that the order under revision therein is sustainable and does not warrant any interference and accordingly, disposed of the CRP, vide order dated 12.04.2022, granting liberty to defendant No.2 to raise all the pleas of admissibility and genuineness of unregistered sale deeds dated 23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and 09.06.1974 in the cross-examination of P.W-1.

6. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that despite the said order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, the trial Court once again entertained the objection raised by defendant No.2 and passed the impugned docket order dated 14.08.2024 holding that the aforesaid unregistered sale deeds are not admissible in evidence. Hence, the present Revision Petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to para 13 of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, which reads as hereunder:-

“Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, the order of the trial Court is sustained and it does not warrant any interference by this Court as the said document Nos.2 to 4-the unregistered sale deeds, are impounded with requisite stamp duty in accordance with the Stamp Act”.

7.1. By referring to aforesaid observation of this Court, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned docket order passed by the trial Court is contrary and not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019. He further submitted that the issue wi