T BASAVARAJU Vs. T NAGARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 28-1-2004 made in I.A.No.62 of 2004 in O.S.No.71 of 1998 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein the petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Order XIII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the petitioner herein to pay stamp duty and penalty and obtain registration of the document i.e. Ex.B-38 as per law in the time stipulated by the Court, was allowed.

(2.) The suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds. During the pendency of the suit, when D.W.6 (3rd defendant) was examined by Commission, a carbon copy of the family settlement deed dated 9-7-1987 was marked through him. Thereafter, defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed the present I.A. stating that unless and until Ex.B-38 is duly stamped and registered, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The 3rd defendant (petitioner herein) resisted the same saying that once the document is marked, defendants 4 and 5 cannot question the admissibility of the same. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, ordered the petition and directed the 3rd defendant to pay the stamp duty and penalty on Ex.B-38 on or before 9-2-2004. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the document is marked, the question of paying stamp duty and registration is not necessary. Even otherwise, Ex.B-38 is meant for collateral purpose. He has drawn attention of the Court to Orders 13 and 18 of C.PC. and Rules 113 and 115of the Civil Rules of Practice and submitted that once the document is marked, the question of its admissibility cannot be taken up for adjudication by the Court below.