THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3527 of 2011 (Dated :10-10-2011) Between: S. Jahara Bee and another. ….…Petitioners. A n d Sk. Ghouse Mohiddin. ….…Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3527 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.6.2011 passed in O.S.No.593 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge deferred the decision regarding the objection raised by the defendants with regard to admissibility of the document produced by the plaintiff. 2. Notice to respondent came to be ordered on 09-09-2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the document sought to be marked in evidence is inadmissible for want of registration and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned in the revision. 6. The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.593 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction in respect of the house bearing Old D.No.5/445, New D.No.5/440, situated at Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa Town and Kadapa Mandal. It is the case of the plaintiff that he got the property by way of oral gift from Ramthumeah. He also pressed into service the Will executed by Ramthumeah on 14-2-1981. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff while being examined as P.W.1, produced a document dated 14-2-1981. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by an order dated 28-8-2009, directed the plaintiff to obtain valuation certificate from the Sub-Registrar in respect of the property covered under the document for ascertaining the proper stamp duty and penalty. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained valuation certificate and produced the same before the trial Court. When the plaintiff tendered the document for being marked as an exhibit, the defendants raised an objection. The learned Junior Civil Judge deferred the decision on the objection raised by the defendants by an order dated 28.8.2009. The said order is challenged in the revision. 7. In the order impugned in the revision, the learned Junior Civil Judge deferred the adjudication of the objection raised by the petitioners. Mere deferring the objection raised by the petitioners does not constitute rejection of their objection. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:10.10.2011 mrb