THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.444 OF 2022

ORDER

The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2022 made in I.A.No.204 of 2021 in O.S.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, whereunder, the said petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants in O.S.No.190 of 2009. The brief facts of the case are that the said suit was filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C’) seeking permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.204 of 2021 under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to de-exhibit Ex.A1 i.e., unregistered sale agreement and to remove the same from the Court records stating that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘Act, 1908’) any document through which possession can be delivered has to be a registered one but the Ex.A1 is not a registered document though the possession is said to have been conveyed by the donor of plaintiff. Therefore, prayed to de-exhibit Ex.A1.

3. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, a counter affidavit was filed in I.A.No.204 of 2021 stating that the petition is neither maintainable on facts, nor on law, as Ex.A1 was marked on 30.08.2011 in the presence of counsel appearing for petitioners/defendants and at that time no objection was raised on their behalf as it is duly impounded. It was stated that the existence of Ex.A1 is also mentioned in Ex.A2 i.e., the registered gift settlement deed dated 30.03.2003. It was contended that Ex.A1 was also sent for expert opinion, according to which the signature of father of defendant No.1 tailed with the signatures appearing on the acquaintance register of father of deceased defendant No.1. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

4. On hearing the submissions made by both sides, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.204 of 2021 observing that even though Ex.A1 is an unregistered document, it can be taken into evidence by the respondent/plaintiff for collateral purpose, therefore, de-exhibiting the document is not proper.

5. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed stating that Ex.A1 cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose as any document through which possession can be delivered has to be a registered one and the Ex.A1 being an unregistered document, the same is inadmissible in law and needs to be de-exhibited.

6. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for respondents.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petition filed to de-exhibit Ex.A1 is erroneously dismissed as the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that Ex.A1 is an unregistered document and any document through which the possession can be delivered has to be a registered document, as such, the trial Court ought not to have marked the said unregistered document. Further, the trial Court ought to have seen that the petitioners raised substantial grounds and filed several citations to get the Ex.A1 de-exhibited, but the same were not considered. Therefore, by relying on the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Boggavarapu Narasimhulu Vs. Sriram Ramanaiah and Others¹ prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the order dated

08.02.2022 made in I.A.No.204 of 2021 in O.S.No.190 of 2009.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there are no infirmities in the order dated 08.02.2022 made in I.A.No.204 of 2021 in O.S.No.190 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed to de-exhibit Ex.A1. He stated that though the counsel appearing for petitioners herein was present when the document was marked, no objection was raised at that time with regard to registration of Ex.A1. He asserted that the Ex.A1 was even referred in Ex.A2 and i