KANCHERLA KRISHNAPPA Vs. M.RAVI KUMAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in IA.No.298 of 2018 in OS.No.25 of 2013 by the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.26 in the suit and he filed IA.No.298 of 2018 seeking to recall the petitioner/defendant No.26 for marking agreement of sale dtd. 26/3/1989 and a photocopy of the ratification deed dtd. 15/3/1989. The learned Judge dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the documents proposed to be marked are not essential for collateral purpose and dismissed the interlocutory application.

(3.) The learned Judge also observed that one of the documents which was proposed to be marked was a photocopy and the procedure contemplated under the evidence act would have to be followed to attempt marking a photocopy of the document. Insofar as the unregistered agreement of sale dtd. 23/6/1969 is concerned, the same is not capable of marking in a suit for partition. It was also held that OS.No.25 of 2013 was filed for partition. As such, an unregistered agreement of sale cannot have any collateral purpose. The respondents 2, 3, 22 and 23 have contended before the trial Court that the petitioner within an intent to drag on the matter has come up with the petition which is not maintainable.