THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3680/2011 and CRPMP NO.162/2011 and CRP (SR) No.423/2011 Date of Order: 21-10-2011 CRP No.3680/2011: Between: R.L.Balaji Kumar ..Petitioner and Vinod Kaulwar ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3680/2011 and CRPMNP NO.162/2011 and CRP (SR) No.423/2011 Common order: The petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.83/2007 filed the suit before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of Rs.4,04,745/- on the foot of mortgage of the property against the defendant who is respondent in CRP No.3680/2011. The said suit was partly decreed on 30-6-2010 granting a simple decree but rejected the prayer for passing a decree on the foot of mortgage. Further, one S.V.V.N. Malleswara Rao filed OS No.696/2002 against the defendant in OS No.83/2007 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note and on decreeing the suit, EP was filed and same has been satisfied. On decreeing the suit, OS No.83/2007, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, EP No.170/2010 was filed for recovery of the amount, in which EA No.505/2010 was filed restraining the respondent/judgment debtor from taking the document Ex.A-3 in OS No.696/2002 (which is also marked as Ex.A-3 in OS No.83/2007) till the satisfaction of the decretal amount in EP No.170/2010. The said EA was dismissed by the executing court on 21-10-2010 with an observation that the petitioner/plaintiff shall make necessary objection before II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, who sent order to send for Ex.A-3 document to his file. Aggrieved by the judgment decree refusing to decree the suit, OS No.83/2007, on the equitable mortgage, the plaintiff in OS No.83/2007 carried the matter in AS No.272/11 before II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and filed IA No.--/2001 (GL No.11908/03-08-2011) praying the court to stay of receiving original document from Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada rejected the said IA holding that petition under Section 151 CPC is not maintainable but he can raise objection for return of the document before the appropriate court and that court has to decide whether document to be returned or not. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff (appellant) filed CRP No.3680/2011 before this court. In the meanwhile, the defendant in OS No.696/2002 filed IA No.1011/2011 to send for the document bearing No.3578/1985 from OS No.83/2007 from the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to the file of OS No.696/2002. The said petition was ordered on 11-11-2010 to transfer the document. Questioning the same, CRP(SR) No.423/2011 is filed along with CRP MP No.162/2011 with a permission to grant leave to the petitioner to file the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions contends that when the suit document Ex.A-3 which was summoned from the court in OS No.696/2002 and marked in OS No.83/2007 as Ex.A-3, where the trial court decreed the suit only for money and rejecting the relief of mortgage, against which appeal is filed and if the document is released in favour of the respondent the petitioner will put irreparable loss. Further, II Additional Senior Civil Judge ought not to have allowed IA No.1011/2010 filed for transferring the document, which was marked as Ex.A-3, is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set-aside. This court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel since the document initially marked in OS No.696/2002 was summoned by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge to be marked in OS No.83/2007 and on decreeing the suit only for money by rejecting the prayer for decree on the foot of mortgage, the document has to be returned to the original court where it was marked for enabling the court to return the document. It is always open for the petitioner to obtain attachment of suit property in OS No.83/2007 for recovering the amount. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot contend that the said document is to be returned to the respondent, which he is entitled to on satisfying the decree in OS No.696/2002 and rejecting to grant decree on the foot of mortgage in OS No.83/2007. No infirming is discernible in the orders passed by the trial court. CRP No.3680/2011 is accordingly dismissed. No costs. CRPMNP NO.162/2011 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, CRP (SR) No.423/2011 shall stand rejected. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.21-10-2011 kmr