Telangana High Court
Terupally Mallappa, vs Kotra Sreedhar Gupta, on 6 September, 2024
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.2670 of 2024
ORDER :
The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner
assailing the Docket Order dated 12.08.2024 in O.S.No.265 of
2020 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District (for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Radhive Poddatur, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Mr. Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel
for the respondent.
3. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court had deferred
the objection that the petitioner has raised in respect of
marking of document, viz., BATA Oppanda Patram / Ex.B.7,
dated 05.09.2000, which the respondent had filed along with
the counter-claim in the above suit filed by the petitioner
herein.
::2:: PSK,J
crp_2670_2024
4. The objections raised by the petitioner herein are two-
fold : firstly, the document being an unregistered document,
and secondly, the document being insufficiently stamped,
and therefore, on these grounds the document could not have
been marked.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact
that in case if there is an objection in respect of the document
which is sought to be marked being insufficiently stamped
then the objection put forth by the party has to be decided
first before venturing into the merits of the suit.
6. To substantiate the above submission, learned counsel
for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased)
Through Legal Representatives and Others 1, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court, citing the decision in the case of Bipin
Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat 2, held at paragraph
No.20 as under, viz.,
(2020) 16 S.C.C. 209
(2001) 3 S.C.C. 1
::3:: PSK,J
crp_2670_2024
"20. This Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs.
State of Gujarat3, deprecated the practice in respect of the
admissibility of any material evidence, where the Court does not
proceed further without passing order on such objection. It was
held that all objections raised shall be decided by the Court at the
final state. The Court held as under :
""14. When so recast, the practice which can be a
better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised
during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of
any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can
make a note of such objection and mark the objected
document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record
the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such
objections to be decided at the last stage in the final
judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the
objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate
can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In
our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course.
(However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to
deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to
decide the objection before proceeding further. For all
other objections the procedure suggested above can be
followed.)""
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied further on a
decision of this High Court in the case of Dwara
Satyanarayana vs. Malladi Bhanumathi 4, wherein the
relevant portion at paragraph No.8 reads as under, viz.,
2016 (3) ALD 505
::4:: PSK,J
crp_2670_2024
"8. ... ... ... Admittedly, no title or ownership over
the said passage is created under the document in favour of
Satyanarayana, the plaintiff, who is the beneficiary under the
document. He was only permitted to reach his lands through
the said passage, which passage the executant of the
document has already provided for his lands. Therefore, to
my mind the document in question created no right in
immovable property; and, only irrevocable permission was
accorded under it to use the existing passage by granting
licence so to say. Viewed thus, this court finds that the
document in question does not require registration. Though
one of the contentions of the defendants, who are objecting for
marking of the document on the ground that it requires
registration, is also that the said document is a forged
document, that aspect need not be considered by this Court in
this Revision petition as it is for the trial Court to go into the
said aspect at the appropriate stage, in case the document is
eventually admitted in evidence and necessary evidence is
adduced by both the sides to prove and disprove the
document."
8. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent contended that
there is no illegality for interfering with the impugned order
passed by the Court below. That the scope of interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution to such orders also is
too minimal inasmuch as neither is there any jurisdictional
error committed by the Court below nor is there any
perversity committed by Court below while reaching to the
::5:: PSK,J
crp_2670_2024
said conclusion. That in the absence of the two, the instant
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be
maintainable.
9. Having heard the contentions of both sides and also
taking into consideration the decisions relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
petitioner himself now concedes that the objection so far as
the document need to be a registered document is no longer
sustainable and he now intends to confine his objection only
so far as the document not being "sufficiently stamped".
10. In the light of the decisions referred to in the preceding
paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
trial Court itself has taken note of all the facts and has kept
the objection open to be considered at the time of deciding the
main suit itself. This observation by the trial Court itself
would show that it has not foreclosed or rejected the
objections so raised by the petitioner. The trial Court further
held that the objections, if any, can also be considered after
evidence is adduced and thereafter appropriate orders can be
passed.
::6:: PSK,J
crp_2670_2024
11. This Court therefore is of the considered opinion that,
taking into consideration that the objection that the petitioner
has raised, and the trial Court having kept the objections
open to be decided after trial, there does not seem to be any
illegality so committed by the trial Court while passing the
impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. Nonetheless, it is ordered that the objections so
raised by the petitioner shall be duly answered by the trial
Court after trial is concluded while deciding the suit itself.
No costs.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 06.09.2024
Ndr
