HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.107 OF 2011 Dated 8th August, 2011 Between: Yaragatupalli Lalithavani. ….Petitioner. And: Chakkirala Padmavathi. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.107 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 14th September, 2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.661 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant seeking for recovery of money basing on a pronote and the title deeds deposited by the defendant and the suit was ended in compromise and in this connection, full satisfaction was recorded and the plaintiff has not returned the title deeds of the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.661 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 seeking to direct the plaintiff to deliver the original title deed of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property dated 2-12-1999 marked as Ex.A.3. The Court below allowed the application and considering the order 34 Rule 5 (1) (a) C.P.C., directed the plaintiff to return Ex.A.3 title deed in question within one month by depositing the same into Court of law. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. On 11.3.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay as prayed for. Subsequently, at request, the matter underwent two adjournments. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the order impugned is illegal and vitiated by material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. Further, the court below failed to see that the suit in question was dismissed, as such, Order 34 Rule 5 (a) C.P.C. has no application to the facts of the case and the defendant is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 (a) C.P.C. Apart from that the Court below failed to see that the plaintiff has not filed Full Satisfaction Memo and conclusion arrived at by the Court below that the petitioner filed Full Satisfaction Memo is not correct. Hence, the Court below is not justified in directing the plaintiff to return Ex.A.3 title deed in question. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is just and proper and as such, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, this revision is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the material available on record. The suit in question is of the year 2006. The record reveals that the suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and title deed which were kept with the plaintiff as a collateral security and the suit was dismissed as settled out of court and that at the preliminary stage, the entire decreetal amount has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and full satisfaction has been recorded to that effect before passing the judgment. But, due to inadvertence, there is no such order directing the plaintiff to return Ex.A.3 title deed which was given by the defendant as a collateral security. As the suit document was not returned, the defendant has filed the present application seeking to return the said original sale deed. The Court below allowed the application ordering return of the said document by invoking Order 34 Rule 5 (1) (a) C.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the entire decreetal amount has been paid and a full satisfaction has been recorded to that effect by the Court below, I am of the opinion that the Court below is just and proper in allowing the application and directing the plaintiff to return Ex.A.3 title deed to the defendant. In that view of the mater, the order under revision does not call for any interference by this Court and hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 8th August, 2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.107 OF 2011 Dated 8th August, 2011