ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.12.2022 dismissing I.A.No.699 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC r/w Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to de-exhibit/eschew Ex.B.1 agreement dated 22.06.2002 from the evidence.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right and title in the‘B’ schedule property and granting the consequential relief ofpermanent injunction restraining against the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the same. An unregistered document dated 22.06.2002 was marked as Ex.B.1. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.No.699 of 2022 with the above said relief, on the ground that it is an unregistered partition deed, and therefore, it suffers from incurable defect as it requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and further it is not duly stamped.

3. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondents No.1 and 3 (2nd respondent having remained ex parte) contending that Ex.B.1 is a Mutchilika entered into between the parties to the suit and the same was originally filed along with the written statement, and therefore, it is not a surprise to the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff had ample opportunity to oppose marking of the document in evidence, however the plaintiff did not chose to oppose the receipt of the document in evidence at the time of marking and now the plaintiff cannot seek the relief at the stage of cross examination of DW.1 to whom it was marked. It is further contended that the document is not hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act or Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

4. After hearing both parties the trial Court observed that the document under Ex.B.1 is an arrangement between the parties who are members of the family and it cannot be described as partition deed and so, it does not require registration or stamp duty. It is further observed that mere marking of document does not mean that the document is proved and the petitioner/plaintiff has opportunity to cross examine DW.1 and that the suit is oldest matter, and as per the direction of the High Court of A.P the matter needs to be expeditiously disposed of. The trial Court took the opinion that there is no need to de-exhibit/eschew Ex.B.1 from the evidence. However, it noticed and recorded that the contents on right side part of the document are erased and the contents of the left part alone were taken into consideration to decide the nature of the document.

5. Aggrieved by the order this revision petition is filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition,particularly in view of the fact that the contents are not legible and moreover by considering part of the document only, the trial Court concluded that it is an arrangement. It is further submitted thatmerely because no objection was raised against the document, under those circumstances, the Court ought not to have received the document in evidence, and therefore, the document ought to have been demarked.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no objection to demark the document in the above circumstances and that the respondents would place other evidence in support of their defense.

8. It is settled law that marking of a document is for the purpose of procedural convenience. If the trial Court commits error in receiving the document which ought not to have been received, the same can be interfered by the High Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The trial Court erred in deciding the nature of the document without the whole contents of the document available. It is clear from the document that right half side of the contents of the document are totally invisible