ORDER

Plaintiff filed the above revision against the order dated

02.12.2022 in I.A.No.225 of 2022 in O.S.No.52 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.52 of 2014 seeking partition of schedule properties. Plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and an advocate commissioner was appointed to record the cross examination of witness. P.W.1 was cross examined by the counsel for defendants 8 and 9 on Page 2 of 12 2023:APHC:35708

24.09.2022. After cross examination of P.W.1, a memo was filed by the counsel for defendants 8 and 9 on 26.09.2022 to mark the partition deed dated 12.10.1992 as Ex.A-4. The Court below marked the same as Ex.A-4 (Ex.AX-4) subject to objection.

3. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.225 of 2022 under Order XIII Rules 3 & 4 and Section 151 of CPC to demark the document by rejecting the document marked as Ex.A-4 (Ex.AX-4).

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that during the cross examination, counsel for defendants 8 and 9 confronted document showing only signature by posing a question that whether A schedule property is sold by her father or not and she answered ‘Yes’. Taking advan