THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3526 of 2011 (Dated :10-10-2011) Between: S. Jahara Bee and another. ….…Petitioners. A n d Sk. Ghouse Mohiddin. ….…Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3526 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.8.2009 passed in O.S.No.593 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to file valuation certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar for ascertaining the value of the property for collecting the stamp duty and penalty on a document dated 14.2.1991. 2. The petitioners are defendants and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.593 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule house bearing Old D.No.5/445, New D.No.5/440, situated at Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa Town, Kadapa Mandal. It is the case of the plaintiff that he got the property by way of gift from Ramthumeah. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff while being examined as P.W.1 produced the document, dated 14.2.19981. The learned Junior Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to file valuation certificate from the Sub-Registrar for ascertaining the value of the property for collecting the stamp duty and penalty by an order dated 28.8.2009. The said order is assailed in the revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 09-09-2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the document sought to be marked in evidence is inadmissible for want of registration and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. The learned Junior Civil Judge by the impugned order directed the plaintiff to file valuation certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar for ascertaining the value of the property for collection of the stamp duty and penalty. The impugned order does not in any way prejudice to the defence pleaded by the petitioners/defendants. Even otherwise, the order impugned is dated 28.8.2009 and whereas the revision is filed on 23.8.2011. No reasonable explanation has been offered for such a long delay in filing the revision. 8. In that view of the matter, I find that the revision does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:10.10.2011 mrb