ORDER:

The order, dated 23.04.2024, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad in I.A.No.30 of 2023 in OS.No.5 of 2018, insofar as not forwarding the ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 for impounding, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Heard Sri G.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though Sri N.Venkataiah, advocate, entered appearance for some of the respondents, there was no representation. Therefore, this Revision Petition is disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.30 of 2023 seeking to send the ordinary sale deeds dated 25.02.1992 and 19.03.1993 executed in respect of the suit schedule property for impounding, as the same were unregistered documents. He further contended that the trial Court by the impugned order has partly allowed the aforesaid application and sent only one sale deed dated 19.03.1993 for impounding and dismissed the application insofar as ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 is concerned on an erroneous observation that there was no reference to the said sale deed in the plaint and that the said document is irrelevant to the suit. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that in the sale deed dated 19.03.1993, there is a clear reference of the sale deed dated 25.02.1992 and in fact, part of sale consideration was paid through ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 and the balance sale consideration was paid through sale deed dated 19.03.1993, therefore, both the documents are necessary and relevant to substantiate the claim of the petitioners in the suit and thus, both the documents ought to have been sent by the trial Court for impounding.

4. Perusal of record discloses that in sale deed dated 19.03.1993, there is a clear reference to sale deed dated 25.02.1992. It is also evident that both the documents are executed in respect of the suit schedule property and part of sale consideration was paid through ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 and the balance sale consideration was paid through sale deed dated 19.03.1993, therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, both the documents are relevant and necessary to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court erred in not sending the ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 for impounding along with sale deed dated 19.03.1993.

5. In the light of the above, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order insofar as declining to forward the ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 for impounding is set aside and I.A.No.30 of 2023 in O.S.No.5 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad, stands allowed and consequently, the trial Court is directed to send the ordinary sale deed dated 25.02.1992 and the sale deed dated 19.03.1993 to the District Collector for impounding in accordance with law.

6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:21.02.2025 dr