HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5268 OF 2010 Dated: 10.12.2010 Between: Parvathaneni Seetharama swamy. ..Petitioner And 1. Parvathaneni Madhusudhana Rao and another .. Respondents This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5268 OF 2010 ORDER: This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the docket order dated 23.9.2010 passed in O.S.No.42 of 2007 by the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the above suit for passing a preliminary decree for an amount of Rs.21,04,000/- towards the mortgage debt. The defendant raised an objection as to the receiving and marking of document dated 11.12.2004 viz., memorandum of deposit of title deeds, on the ground that it requires stamp duty and registration. On such objection, the order impugned was passed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contends that though the objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant as to the marking of the document in question on the ground that it requires stamp duty and registration, the same has not been considered. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Pola Satish Kumar Vs. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Limited, Warangal, rep., by its Foreman and others[1]. Merely because an objection was raised by the petitioner- defendant as to the marking of document in question on the ground that it requires stamp duty and registration, the same need not be considered then and there. The consideration of such objection then and there should depend upon the nature of the document sought to be marked. Apart from that, the contents of document in question show the acknowledgement of receipt of amount on 10.12.2004 and deposit of title deeds with regard to the property of the defendant. The question as to whether the mortgage is created through the said document in question is to be decided on the basis of evidence let in by the parties. The order impugned reads as follows: “Instead of tendering finding at this stage, the finding can be reserved and tendered at the time of final hearing of the matter and subject to the same, the document can be marked subject to admissibility at this stage. For continuation of chief examination of P.W.1 call on 6.10.2010.” The order of the Court below clearly indicates that the objection was not judicially determined, but however the finding on such objection is postponed or reserved so as to facilitate the uninterrupted recording of evidence. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 10th December, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week B/O Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5268 OF 2010 10.12.2010 [1] 2007(6) ALT 421