ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. This [ACT] is directed against the order dated 5-7-2004, passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER], praying to reject Exs.A3 to A27 from the list of documents for want of sufficient stamp duty and registration.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff. While the petitioner is the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for eviction from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of his witness on 24-1-2003 and marked documents Exs.A1 to A27. The petitioner contending that he had no opportunity to object to the marking of the documents, filed the present application, praying to reject the documents Exs.A3 to A27. However, during the course of arguments, he confined his prayed only to the extent of rejecting the marking of Ex.A27-lease deed, on the ground that it is insufficiently stamp and is not registered. The said application on contest by the defendant, by reason of the order impugned in this [ACT] was dismissed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the respondent-plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief of his witness on 24-1-2003 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A27. He submitted that the respondent at the time of marking the documents, has not furnished the copies thereof to the petitioner. He submitted that Ex.A27-lease deed was executed on 12-4-2004 and as per the amendment brought to [ACT], which came into effect from 1-4-1999, the lease deed has to be compulsorily registered. He submitted that the respondent marked the documents in the absence of the petitioner and inasmuch as Ex.A27-lease deed is not registered, the same itself not admissible in evidence, the Court below ought not to have marked the same irrespective of whether there was any objection to its marking. He submits that inasmuch as the respondent had marked the said document in the absence of the petitioner, the petitioner had no opportunity to object to the same and therefore, the same has to be rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in [PRECEDENT], , as to when objection can be taken as to the marking of the secondary evidence.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent marked Exs.A3 to A27 giving prior notice to the petitioner and under intimation to the Counsel appearing on his behalf. He submitted that at the time of marking the documents, the Court raised objections as to insufficiency of stamp duty on the receipts, which the respondent paid with penalty. The Counsel for the petitioner even endorsed "no objection, subject to proof of relevancy" on the list of documents and as such, the petitioner is estopped from taking any objection to the marking of the documents. He submitted that once a document is marked as exhibit with prior intimation to the petitioner, the same cannot be recalled. He, thus submitted that the Court below was justified in refusing to reject Ex.A27-lease deed and more so when the petitioner is given the opportunity to raise objection regarding its admissibility at appropriate time.
6. Admittedly, the lease deed, which was executed on 12-4-2004 and which is marked as Ex.A27, is not registered. Having regard to the amendment made to the [ACT], which came into effect from 1-4-1999, a lease deed is compulsorily required to be registered. Since Ex.A27-lease deed, is not registered and said to be insufficiently stamped, the same is inadmissible in evidence. Though Ex.A27-lease deed is not registered and inadmissible in evidence, the fact remains, the same was marked in evidence. Though the petitioner contends that Ex.A27-lease deed was marked in his absence along with other documents and no opportunity whatsoever was provided to him to object to the marking, the same is disputed by the respondent contending that the documents were marked giving prior notice to the respondent and the Counsel for the respondent even endorsed "no objection, subject to proof of relevancy" on the list of documents. Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner gave his consent to the marking of the documents or that he was not provided opportunity to object to the marking of the documents, the fact remains, the Court below had marked the documents, including Ex.A27-lease deed, which is inadmissible in evidence.
7. As per the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence and an objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is required to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence and in case, the Court is not admitting the document in evidence, the document may be returned to the person who sought to produce it (See Para 19 of [PRECEDENT], (supra .
8. In the instant case, admittedly, there is an endorsement made by the Judge admitting Ex.A27-lease deed in evidence and at the time of admitting the said document in evidence, the petitioner, admittedly did not raise any objection, obviously for the reason that he was not present and as such, neither there was any occasion for the petitioner to object to the marking of Ex.A7-lease deed nor was there any objection for the Judge to consider and render his opinion on the admissibility or otherwise of the marking of Ex.A27 in evidence.
9. The petitioner, admittedly did not challenge the order of the Judge marking Ex.A27-lease deed in evidence in any higher forum and now, by this application, he sought to reject Ex.A27-lease deed on the ground that it is not registered and as such, inadmissible in evidence and inasmuch as Ex.A27-lease deed, is in itself inadmissible in evidence, he contends that the Judge ought not to have marked the same in evidence and inasmuch as the Ex.A27-lease deed was marked, without providing opportunity to object to its making, the same has to be rejected. I am unable to accept this contention of the petitioner. Admittedly, Ex.A27-lease deed, which is not a registered document, is a secondary piece of evidence. As per the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the objections as to admissibility of documents can be raised at two stages and this was classified by the apex Court in [PRECEDENT], (supra) namely (i) objection that the document sought to be proved is itself inadmissible and (ii) objection directed not against the admissibility of the document but against the mode of proof thereof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency. In relation to the first category, the apex Court held that the objection can be raised even after the document has been marked as "an exhibit" or even in appeal or revision and in relation to the second category, it held that the objection can be raised when the evidence is tendered but not after the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit. In the instant case, the petitioner contends that the Ex.A27-lease deed, which is marked in evidence, is in itself inadmissible as it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped and his objection to Ex.A27-lease deed not be with regard to the mode of proof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency, as per the ratio of the apex Court in [PRECEDENT], (supra) on which he placed heavy reliance, he can raise objection even after the document has been marked as "an exhibit" or even in appeal or revision. Now that Ex.A27-lease deed has already been marked as an exhibit, the only course open to the petitioner is to take objection as to its consideration at the time of arguments and more so having regard to the judgment of the apex Court in [PRECEDENT] , wherein it was held that a document not admissible in evidence, if brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration.
10. In [PRECEDENT], a learned Judge of this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to look into whether a document-is properly stamped or not before admitting the document or giving the document an exhibit mark, but when once the document is exhibited and admitted, the Court cannot recall the said order by reviewing the same. Inasmuch as in the case on hand, the Ex.A27-lease deed was already admitted in evidence, the same cannot be recalled and more so by way of a review, which the petitioner by reason of the application, in principle sought.
11. For the foregoing reasons, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
12. There is no merit in the [ACT] and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.