BOGGAVARAPU NARASIMHULU Vs. SRIRAM RAMANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant assailing the orders dated 26.06.2012 of the leaned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore dismissing his application in I.A.No.1028 of 2011 in O.S.No.653 of 2009 filed under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code', for short) requesting to demark and reject exhibit A1, the original agreement of sale dated 02.06.2008, and to eschew the evidence of PW1 in regard to the said exhibit.

(2.) The facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:- 'The respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs ('the plaintiffs', for short) filed the suit O.S.No.653 of 2009 against the revision petitioner/2nd defendant ('the 2nd defendant', for short) and the 3rd respondent/1st defendant for return of the advance amount with interest and for costs. The plaintiffs filed and relied upon the original agreement of sale dated 02.06.2008. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit. The case of the 2nd defendant is as follows: 'Since the suit is not one for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and as the suit is filed only for return of the advance amount with interest and for costs, an objection was raised by the 2nd defendant for exhibiting the said unregistered agreement of sale on the ground that the said agreement, which is required under law to be registered, is hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and is inadmissible in evidence. In spite of the said objection, the trial Court had allowed the document to be exhibited as exhibit A1. Hence, the 2nd defendant filed the petition for demarking and rejecting the said document and eschewing from consideration the evidence of PW1 in regard to the said document. However, the trial Court had erroneously dismissed the application.' On the other hand, the defence of the plaintiffs is as follows: 'The agreement of sale was filed along with the plaint. In the written statement, no objection was raised in regard to its admissibility. No objection was also raised when the document was exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs. When once the document is marked as exhibit A1, without any objection, it cannot be demarked and the evidence in regard to the said document cannot be eschewed from consideration. The petition is filed to drag on the proceedings and there are no merits in the petition. Hence, the trial Court rightly rejected the request of the 2nd defendant.' Be it noted that the 3rd defendant filed a counter supporting the case of the 2nd defendant.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record including the impugned orders.