SYED YOUSUF ALI Vs. MOHD. YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 11.09.2015 over -rulling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant about admissibility of possessory agreement or sale, dated 26.06.2012 marked as Ex.A.1.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that at the time of marking possessory agreement of sale as Ex.A.1 objection could not be raised as it was marked in the affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC in lieu of examination in chief and learned counsel was sick on that day and therefore, questioning the admissibility of the possessory agreement of sale, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, filed memo bringing to the notice of the Court that the document is inadmissible, in view of Explanation to S.No. 47A of Schedule 1 -A of the Indian Stamp Act and 17(1) of the Registration Act. The trial Court, considering the objection based on memo, passed an order holding that when the document is received in evidence, marked as exhibit without any objection, the same cannot be agitated at the subsequent stage, placing reliance on judgments of this Court in Shaik Qutubuddin S/o Shaik Ahmed and another v. Goli Vishwanatham S/o Mallesham and others , Cheryala Srinivas v. Moola Sujatha and others AND B.Bhaskar Reddy v. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami Reddy (died) per LRs and others.