IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6302 of 2009 Between: Smt. Kalluri Vishnu Kumari … Petitioner And: Smt. Ch. Samrajyam & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6302 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.11.2009 in IA No.688 of 2009 in OS No.169 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur district, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner-D.2 and others under Order 18 rule 17 read with 151 CPC for recall of DW.1 for the purpose of marking of document dated 20.05.2006, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner and other defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property and separate possession. The defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. After necessary issues were settled, the trial of the suit has commenced. The defendants filed document dated 20.05.2006 along with the written statement purporting to be the deed of partition, said to have been executed already by the parties. The plaintiff disputing the said document denied that there was any earlier partition. The defendants filed IA No.608 of 2008 for sending the partition deed dated 20.05.2006 to the District Collector for the purpose of impounding, collection of stamp duty and penalty and the said petition was allowed and the document was impounded and deficit stamp duty was paid. As the said document was unstamped, the same was objected earlier by the plaintiff from marking the same in the evidence. The petitioner-2nd defendant therefore filed the present application for recall of DW.1 for the purpose of marking the said document. The first respondent-plaintiff opposed the same. 4. It is to be noted that the document could not be admitted in the evidence earlier as it was not duly stamped. Subsequent to impounding of the document and payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, the document has become eligible to be admitted in evidence, of course subject to proof and relevancy. It is open to the first respondent-plaintiff to raise all contentions pertaining to the proof and relevancy of the said document at the appropriate stage, but there cannot be any tenable objection for recall of DW.1 for the purpose of marking the said document, which is now sought to be admitted in evidence pursuant to its impounding. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application for recall of DW.1 is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.11.2011 bss