The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order by a Senior Civil Judge that rejected objections against an unregistered mortgage deed marked during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1438 OF 2010
Between:
Bandari Renuka @ Revathi and others
.....PETITIONERS
AND
Peechu Ramreddy
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1438 OF 2010
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.03.2010, in I.A.No.919 of 2009 in O.S.No.168 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed for rejection of Ex.A1 and renumbering of exhibits, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ex.A1 is an
unregistered mortgage deed; that it is not admissible under law; and that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to impound the said document, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order.
3. Ex.A1 was marked through PW.1. At the time of marking of the document, no objection has been raised by the petitioners counsel. Simply because the document is marked, it does not mean that the same has to be accepted in evidence. The trial Court held that the correctness or otherwise of the document Ex.A1 can be decided during the trial at the time of disposal of the suit. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court, in view of the fact that none of the finding is shown to be perverse.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to raise their objections at the appropriate time with regard to Ex.A1, because it was not registered. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
April 20, 2010 MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court ought to interfere with the Senior Civil Judge who dismissed the plea for rejection of an unregistered mortgage deed and renumbering of exhibits.
Whether the marking of an unregistered document as evidence makes it admissible.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bandari Renuka @ Revathi and others
Peechu Ramreddy
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
