SUNKARI SRUJANA Vs. CHIKKALA BHAVANI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.Rajendra, the counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiffs had preferred this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by an order made by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 902 of 2003 in O.S.No. 595 of 2003, dated 10-09-2003. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the said application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to impound the document Ex. A-5 dated 18-08-1999 marked on 23-07-2003 by reviewing the Order and pass such other suitable orders. The learned Judge allowed the said application and directed the section to put up the report relating to Ex. A-5 for the assessment of stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri B. Rajendra, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction and the learned Judge should have dismissed the said application since the same was marked as Ex. A-5. When the document was already admitted by the Court, there is no question of ordering impounding of such a document. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. Elaborate submissions were made relating to several factual aspects which had transpired before the Court below. The learned counsel also specifically pointed out that on the said date a request was made by the counsel representing the respondent herein and this aspect clearly goes to show that the ground of mala fide intention or the ground of playing fraud which are being canvassed, cannot be sustained at all.