ORDER:

1. The present civil revision petition has been directed against order dated 09.12.2022 in I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.30 of 2022 (old OS No.28 of 2011) on the file of Principle District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as (cid:145)trial Court(cid:146)), whereunder, the application filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff herein to recall PW.1 for marking the family settlement deed was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and at the time of filing the suit, he has filed the family settlement deed dated 22.08.2009. In the course of trial, he has also filed chief affidavit of PW.1 referring to the document, which he relied upon. However, the trial Court did not mark it or assign any reasons for not marking. Thereafter, the present application is filed to recall PW.1 for marking the family settlement deed, which was ignored by the previous Judge when marking the other documents. The said request was rejected on the ground that the previous Judge rejected the marking of document on the ground that the family settlement deed was unregistered. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that there is no order of rejection so as to bar the present application to recall PW.1. Learned counsel for revision petitioner further contended that the trial Court has not properly considered the passing of order rejecting the document on the ground of non-registration.

3. Learned counsel for respondents contended that document filed by the revision petitioner in the present application is not disclosing the reason why the said document was not marked and why he could be silent when marking of such document was ignored. According to him, the document could not be marked as there was lack of registration to the said document and having accepted such unmarking, he cannot take advantage of change of Judge and file the present application for similar prayer.

4. Proof of publication filed for respondent No.9 and none represented.

5. Heard both sides.

6. From the impugned Judgment, the learned Judge found that there is a pencil cross mark on the family settlement deed, which marking has been taking as the rejection of such document. Such approach of the Court is not correct. If there is rejection of document, it must have the reason and there must be endorsement of rejection which is absent on the document. In the absence of such endorsement or for what reason the document was not marked, the Court cannot assume that it was rejected on the ground of non-registration.

7. The present petition is only filed to recall PW.1 to mark the document, which was ignored previously. The objection regarding the admissibility of the document can be taken when document sought to be marked through PW.1; that situation would only come when the witness is recalled and entered into witness box. Before that it cannot be decided. Therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the order and allow the revision by protecting the interest of the defendant.

8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 in I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.30 of 2022 (old OS No.28 of 2011) on the file of Principle District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet is hereby set aside.

9. The petition is allowed subject to the condition that when the witness entered into witness box and when attempt is made to mark the document, the defendant is given liberty to oppose marking of document on the ground of admissibility or any other ground, which is available to him and the Judge shall decide such objection before it is being marked. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 10.03.2023 pld THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.32 OF 2023 Dated: 10.03.2023 pld