HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1688 of 2011 & 1689 OF 2011 DATE:24-06-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1688 OF 2011 BETWEEN Singaraju Venkata Sundara Siva Rao …Petitioner AND Jogi Adinarayana and another …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1689 OF 2011 BETWEEN Singaraju Venkata Sundara Siva Rao …Petitioner AND Jogi Adinarayana and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1688 of 2011 & 1689 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. First defendant filed these two revisions under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the common order passed by VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna, Machilipatnam, dated 20.1.2011 in I.A.No.259 of 2010 in I.A.No.201 of 2006 and I.A.No.201 of 2006 in O.S.No.17 of 2006. Plaintiff-first respondent herein filed the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale etc., in which he filed I.A.No.201 of 2006 to send the unregistered agreement of sale to the Stamp Collector (R.D.O.) Machilipatnam for the purpose of impounding it. In the said I.A., petitioner herein filed I.A.No.259 of 2010 to reject the possessory agreement of sale, dated 3.11.2004. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed I.A.No.201 of 2006 and dismissed I.A.No.259 of 2010 in view of the orders passed by this Court in Transfer C.M.P.No.203 of 2010. The said C.M.P. was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for transferring the suit in O.S.No.386 of 2006 pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam to the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam to be tried and disposed of along with O.S.No.17 of 2006 and this Court by order, dated 06.7.2010 allowed the C.M.P. transferring O.S.No.386 of 2006 to the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam to be tried and disposed of along with O.S.No.17 of 2006 and with a direction to the petitioner therein i.e. the plaintiff-first respondent herein to get the document impounded within a period of two months from the date of the order and with a further direction to the lower Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. In view of the above direction passed by this Court, the lower Court allowed I.A.No.201 of 2006 and dismissed I.A.No.259 of 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contends that no purpose would be served if the document is impounded as the said document is inadmissible in evidence and hence the lower Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.259 of 2010 and dismissed I.A.No.201 of 2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein filed a review Tr.C.M.P.M.P.No.752 of 2010 to review the order passed in Tr.C.M.P.No.203 of 2010, dated 06.7.2010 and this Court by order, dated 24.11.2010 disposed of the application as under: “Except stipulating time for impounding of the document, this Court did not express its view as to the admissibility of the document or on any other aspect. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise any objection as to the admissibility of the document at appropriate time.” Having regard to the above, mere impounding the document and collecting the stamp duty will not amount to admitting the said document. After the document is returned by duly impounding, it is always open to the petitioner to object for the admission of the said document in evidence and if any such objection is raised, it is the duty of the Court below to consider the said objection and pass appropriate orders. Further if the said order goes against the petitioner, it is always open for him to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 24, 2011 Tsr.