IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5054 of 2010 Between: Nayapu Janakiram .. Petitioner AND Chukka Ramulu and 21 others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1172 of 2010 in O.S.No.59 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 21-09-2010 dismissing the request of the 1st defendant to reject the documents marked as Exs.A.2 and A.10 in the suit. The 1st defendant claimed in his affidavit in support of the application that the plaintiffs got Exs.A.2 and A.10 marked through PW.1 and the Memoranda of Understanding are vitiated due to want of registration and stamp and could not have been admitted into evidence. The documents were marked mechanically in the absence of the counsel for the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had no legal knowledge to oppose their marking. Memoranda of Understanding on a plain reading indicate that they are agreements of sale reciting delivery of possession and also receipt of sale consideration and they, in effect and substance, constitute deeds of sale. That such documents are inadmissible is well settled by the precedents from this Court and hence, the 1st defendant desired that the documents be rejected as inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff opposed the request contending that the copies of the documents along with additional list of documents and the petition to receive the documents by condoning the delay were served on the 1st defendant on 14-3-2010 and on 15-3-2010, the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination was filed. The matter was posted to 22-03-2010 at the request of the counsel and after the petition was posted for filing counter and after grant of sufficient adjournments, the court marked the documents on 6-4-2010 as neither a counter was filed nor the senior counsel appeared before the Court. It was on 21-4-2010 that the senior counsel submitted that he will file this application concerning marking of Exs.A.2 and A.10. The plaintiffs also contended that the objections about the deficiency in stamp and want of registration concerning Exs.A.2 and A.10 are not sustainable and further contended that they are mere Memoranda of Understanding, the marking of which causes no prejudice to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs also referred to the decision reported in 2008 (4) ALD 102 (SC) to contend that the true nature and purpose of a document has to be determined with reference to the terms of the document expressing the intention of the parties. Hence, they desired that the petition be dismissed. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that it is not open to the 1st defendant to raise an objection subsequently, when admittedly at the time of marking them, there was no objection raised by the 1st defendant. With reference to Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court felt that the precedents cited by the 1st defendant have no application and as no objection can be raised at that stage, the petition was dismissed. The 1st defendant approached this Court with this revision contending that Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Sections 17 (b) and 49 (c) of the Registration Act were not appreciated by the trial Court and the jurisdiction vested in the trial Court was not exercised by it in spite of inviting its notice to the binding precedents. The unregistered and insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence. Hence, the 1st defendant desired the impugned orders to be reversed. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The point for consideration is whether the trial Court ought to have passed an order of rejection of Exs.A.2 and A.10 after admitting them into evidence through PW.1? Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 mandates that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question at any subsequent stage in the same suit on the ground of the instrument being not duly stamped except as provided in Section 61. Section 61 provides for revision of certain decisions of Courts regarding the sufficiency of stamps and while it is well settled that a document in question already admitted into evidence and marked cannot be rejected, on the ground that it is not properly stamped, in between, it is also clear that the legal effect and probative value of the documents in question are always open to be determined by the trial Court at the time of its determination of the suit finally on merits. Insofar as the want of registration of the documents is concerned, the prohibition against consideration of such documents imposed by Section 49 of the Registration Act is only to the extent of the stipulations in clauses-a to c thereof. But, it is also well settled that such a document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose. Whether Exs.A.2 and A.10 herein are attempted to be used for a collateral purpose or for a primary purpose, if they are compulsorily registerable documents is a question, which can be determined by the Court on merits at the time of final adjudication of the suit itself. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also referred to Order XVIII Rule 4 (1) proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure whereunder the proof and admissibility of documents filed and relied on by the parties was made dependent on the orders of the Court and the very narration of events that happened before admitting the documents into evidence herein showed that they were filed along with the petition to condone the delay in filing them and the delay was condoned in the absence of any counter and they were marked in open court through PW.1 in the absence of any counter or objection on behalf of the 1st defendant, which shows the application of mind by the court before marking. Therefore, any interim interference during the further proceedings in the suit after the stage of admission of these documents into evidence is not called for and it is always open to the Court to determine, at the time of final adjudication of the suit, the nature of the documents, their legal effect on the rights and interests of the parties etc., and the extent to which they can be acted upon, irrespective of their being marked and admitted into evidence earlier. The probative value of the documents is still open for determination by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the suit and there need not be any interlocutory rejection of the documents in between. The restricted revisional jurisdiction does not appear to be available to the 1st defendant to nullify the impugned order. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs with the above observations. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 3-12-2010 Ksn