HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4806 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Sajja Venkataswamy @ Musalaiah …Petitioner AND Smt. Kadavakollu Radha Bai …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4806 OF 2009 ORDER: Defendant is in revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the docket order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dated 3.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.782 of 2008 in O.S.No.378 of 2005. On instituting the above suit by the plaintiff-respondent herein for permanent injunction, the defendant-petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. to reject the plaint contending that the schedule property is an assigned land and the same is said to have been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent herein from one Vempati Uma Krishna Prasad and hence, the said sale is void and cannot confer any rights on the plaintiff and therefore, the suit with regard to the assigned land is barred and the same is liable to be rejected. During the course of enquiry, parties filed certain documents. Petitioner objected for marking of the documents i.e. Exs.R.1 to R.24 filed by respondent- plaintiff about various orders passed by the revenue officials to claim protection under Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Court below overruled the objections of the petitioner herein for marking the documents produced by the plaintiff-respondent herein to establish that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of the said Act. Contending that the lower Court ought not to have received the documents filed by the plaintiff, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit as such is barred by limitation and it is to be rejected outright and no further enquiry is necessary in the impugned I.A. once it is established that the land was assigned in favour of the petitioner or his ancestors. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not commend appreciation. The petitioner cannot have any grievance at this stage since with a view to dispose of the I.A. filed by the petitioner, the lower Court received the documents overruling the objections. In the event of dismissal of the I.A., petitioner will have an opportunity to question the same or if the suit itself is disposed of finally against the petitioner, he can question the orders passed in the I.A. in the appeal, if any, filed by him. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the lower Court in overruling the objections of the petitioner in receiving the documents dose not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.