HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6123 of 2009 Date: April 8, 2010 Between: Paidipala Sadanandam, S/o. Buchaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.H.No.2/2, Gorrekunta village of Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, and another … Petitioner And Togaru Komuraiah, S/o. Veeraiah, aged 64 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.11-18-779, Kasibuga, Warangal … Respondent Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 19-10-2009, passed in O.S.No.293 of 2005, by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which is filed for injunction simplicitor with regard to suit schedule property, covered by Sy.No.132/B of Gorrekunta village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District. When the document dated 08-11-1999 was being marked on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, there was an objection on behalf of the petitioners-defendants with regard to marking of such document on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. The court below passed the impugned order overruling the said objections. Hence, the present revision petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that the document dated 08-11-1999 is an exchange deed, but not an agreement of sale. A copy of the said document is filed along with the material papers. The said document, so far as Sy.No.132/B is concerned, states to the effect in view of the understanding and compromise, the vendors hereby execute this agreement of sale in favour of the purchasers in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.10 guntas in Sy.No.132/B of Gorrekunta village of Geesugonda Mandal. Hence, so far as the land covered by Sy.No.132/B is concerned, which is the suit schedule property, the document in question is an agreement of sale, which is sufficiently stamped. In the circumstances and in view of the reasons recorded by the court below, I find no illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J April 8, 2010 MRR