THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6033 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.225 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent filed written statement and issues were framed. The trial of the suit commenced sometime in the year 2007. The respondent intended to rely on a document, dated 09.08.1989, in the course of his evidence. Petitioner raised an objection for the admissibility of the document, as it was neither registered nor stamped properly. The objection was dealt with by the trial Court on 19.12.2007. A detailed order was passed holding that though the document is not registered, it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose on payment of stamp duty and penalty. No time was stipulated for impounding of the document. For one reason or the other, the impounding did not take place for quite sometime. 2. The respondent filed I.A.No.378 of 2009 under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with section 151 CPC, with a prayer to send the document to the District Collector, Kurnool for adjudication of the stamp duty and for impounding of the document. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A through Order, dated 12-11-2004. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, dated 19.12.2007, was not complied with by the respondent and the present application is totally impermissible in law. She contends that the trial Court ignored its own order, passed on earlier occasion, and granted the same relief, which it grated earlier on 19.12.2007. 4. In the suit filed by the petitioner herein, the respondent intended to rely upon a deed of partition. The admissibility of that document was dealt with by the trial Court in detail. Through its order, dated 19.12.2007, it was ultimately held that the document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose, provided that the stamp duty and penalty are paid thereon. It appears that the Court did not have the Presiding Officer for quite sometime and for one reason or the other, the respondent could not get the document impounded. He wanted a specific order from the trial Court for sending the document to the Collector for the purpose of impounding. It may be true that the filing of I.A was almost superfluous. Earlier, the trial court has passed an order on 19.12.2007 touching upon the admissibility of the document as well as the necessity to get it impounded, however the effort made by the respondent to obtain a specific order to the concerned revenue authority for impounding the document cannot be said to be untenable or contrary to law. The trial court has referred to its earlier order and passed the order under revision, enabling the respondent to get the document impounded. The fear of the petitioner that the steps ordered through the I.A may prolong the suit, can be allayed by directing that the process of impounding shall be concluded within a period of two months. 5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of upholding the order under revision directing the learned Principal senior Civil Judge, Nandhyala, to stipulate two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for impounding the document. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 VJL/KTL