ORDER:

This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 04.03.2011, in I.A.No.455 of 2019 in O.S.No.564 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta (For short ‘trial Court’) filed under Order XIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C., to reject the Ex.B1 as inadmissible in evidence.

2. Heard Sri T. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Lakshmi Naraayana, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the 1st respondent herein is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6 are the respondents in I.A.No.455 of 2019 in O.S.564 of 2015.

4. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.564 of 2015 for declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. During the trial, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.81 of 2019 for grant of leave to file documents. At the time of filing the I.A.No.81 of 2019, they served a zerox copy of unregistered and improperly stamped partition deed dated 10.07.1925 and the 1st respondent is under impression that they filed only zerox copy of the document only. Later, counter was filed by the 1st respondent and after hearing both sides, the said I.A.No.81 of 2019 was allowed. On 04.11.2019, when the counsel for the petitioners came for marking of the document, Smt. Anjali, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent taken objection for marking of the documents. Then to their surprise, the learned counsel came to know that they filed original document into Court without their knowledge. Thereafter, the trial Court marked the same as Ex.B1. The Ex.B1 is inadmissible in evidence under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act. The document was exhibited without the objection being considered. As such, there is no legal marking of the document. The document has to be rejected for want of adequate stamp duty and registration.

5. The respondents filed their counter before the trial court and contended that once a document is allowed to be marked, it shall not be de-exhibited according to law. At the time of marking document, Smt. Anjali was not raised any objection at the time of marking and if any objection raised by her, it should be noted on the docket and a partition list need not be necessary for registration as per law. Under the law, even an unregistered partition deed can be admitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act to prove the division of status and possession and enjoyment of respective properties. The document dated 10.07.1925 is admissible in evidence. A counsel is not a power of attorney agent of a part to the suit and an Advocate cannot file any affidavit or a plaint for the party and signed the same as if he was a party and the affidavit filed by the petitioner and prays to dismiss the said petition.

6. The trial court after considering the submissions of both the counsel, allowed the said petition. Assailing the same, the C.R.P came to be filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the trial Court erred in allowing I.A., for rejection of Ex-B.1 as inadmissible in evidence, it amounts to defeat the rights of the party accrued during the course of trial and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the I.A., as the document is marked before the presence of other side as per the procedure and the trial Court erred in allowing the application for detachment of exhibit is violative of principles of natural justice and the trial Court ought to have seen that the unregistered document could be used as corroborative evidence and it can be used for any collateral purpose subject to payment of penalty and stamp duty. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Another Vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar1