THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA +CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.77 of 2010 % DATED: 09.04.2010 #Salma & another. ..... PETITIONERS And $ Asma Afroze & another. .....RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: SRI K.VENKATESH GUPTA ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: V.K.SHIVA SHANKAR < Gist: >Head Note ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.77 of 2010 DATED: 09-04-2010 Between: Salma & another. ..... PETITIONERS And Asma Afroze & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 02-12-2009, in I.A.No.1137 of 2008 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the Court below refused to de-exhibit Ex.A4-agreement of sale, marked in the year, 2003, at the instance of the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and for consequent injunction. Petitioners, who are the respondents in the said suit, contested the suit and filed a written statement. During the course of trial, as there was no dispute with regard to the execution of the agreement of sale in the month of March, 2003, for which both the parties herein are parties, respondents herein filed I.A.No.163 of 2008 and the said application was allowed by the Court below and the said agreement of sale, executed in the month of March, 2003 was summoned from O.S.No.101 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Thereafter, when the plaintiffs were examined, the said document was filed and the Court below marked it as Ex.A4. Subsequently, the present application i.e. I.A.No.1137 of 2008 has been filed stating that the said document should not have been marked as Ex.A4 for the reason that it is not the document exhibited by the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein and it shall be treated as a court document for all purposes and hence it should have been marked as Ex.X4 but not as Ex.A4 and thus prayed the Court below to de-exhibit Ex.A4- agreement of sale, as stated supra, but the said application was dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 4. Rule 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with marking of exhibits and it reads as follows: Marking of Exhibits:- “1 ) Exhibits admitted in evidence shall be marked as follows: i) If filed by the plaintiff or one of several plaintiffs, with the capital letter ‘A’ followed by a numeral A1, A2, A3 etc., ii) If filed by the defendant or one of several defendants, with the capital letter ‘B’ followed by a numeral B1, B2, B3 etc. iii) If Court exhibits with the capital letter ‘C’ followed by a numeral C1, C2, C3 etc. iv) If third party exhibits, with the capital letter ‘X’ followed by a numeral X1, X2, X3 etc. 2) The exhibits filed by several plaintiffs or defendants shall be marked consecutively 3) If in a proceeding subsequent to the trial of a suit or matter, further exhibits are admitted in evidence, they shall be marked in accordance with the above scheme with numbers consecutive to the numbers on the last exhibit previously filed. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the execution of the said document for the reason that both the parties have clearly stated that they are parties to the said agreement of sale. It is true that the said agreement of sale was not produced by the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein and it was summoned by the Court below from another suit in O.S.No.101 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. From that, it cannot be said that it becomes a court document, but not a document on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents. When once there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the said document and the petitioner also did not oppose the said summoning of the document from O.S.No.101 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, this Court is unable to understand as to what difference does it make whether it is marked as Ex.A4 or Ex.X4. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that if the said document is marked as Ex.X4, as and when the suit is decided the said document will be sent back to the Court by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar and if the same is marked as Ex.A4, after disposal of the suit, it will be returned to the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein. The said contention is true but the Court below has taken care in its order and observed that as and when the suit is disposed of, the said document-agreement of sale shall be sent back to its original place i.e. O.S.No.101 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. When once the Court below has taken care in that aspect and it is not making any difference because of the said marking, in my considered view, this revision fails. 7. As it is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondent that the said document may be returned inadvertently to the plaintiffs after disposal of the suit, for the reason that it is marked as Ex.A4, the Court below is hereby directed to make an endorsement on Ex.A4 to the effect that the said document will be returned to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, after disposal of the suit. 8. Accordingly Civil Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 09th April, 2010. Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o Tsy