IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4763 OF 2006 BETWEEN Ravula Ilyaiah. …PETITIONER AND Ravulapally Srinivas and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. G. RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioner, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.1179 of 2005 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal is aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2006 whereunder the Court below took an objection for marking of suit document dated 25.11.2002 unless the document is adequately stamped and registered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of money against the respondents 1 and 2 based on the aforesaid suit document, which according to him is in the nature of a promissory note. Learned counsel says that the said document records another transaction whereunder an additional security of immovable property is furnished by depositing original title deeds of the property of the respondents. Learned counsel states that suit as such is based upon the promissory note alone and is not for the purpose of enforcing any security as contained in the second part of the suit document. Learned counsel, therefore, says that though the respondents were set ex parte while recording ex parte evidence, the Court below raised objection with regard to deficit stamp duty and registration and without compliance therewith did not allow the petitioner to mark the said document. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 3. In this revision also nobody appears for respondents 1 and 2 in spite of the fact that the petitioner’s counsel had ultimately taken paper publication in EENADU, Warangal edition dated 25.03.2007 and accordingly, filed proof of publication on 28.03.2007. 4. I have seen the plaint in O.S.No.1179 of 2005, which shows that it is only a suit for recovery of money based on the aforesaid suit document treating it as promissory note. The Court below has also noticed in the impugned order that one composite document may contain more than one transaction and for the purpose of marking of the document it has to be seen as to which part of the document is sought to be enforced. The Court below also noticed a decision of this Court in V. ANJANEYULU v. VADAPALLI PEDDANNA @ PEDDAIAH[1] but has distinguished the same erroneously. There is another decision of this Court in GEDELA LALITHA KUMARI v. BONUMAHANTHI NEELAKANTHAM[2], which also supports the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that if more than one transaction is recorded in one document, the recital of the document is severable and can be allowed to be marked to the extent of such part of the document, which does not require registration. 5. In the present case, the Court below already found in the impugned order that the recital of the document fulfils the ingredients of demand promissory note as per Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and since that is the only transaction that is sought to be enforced, I am unable to see any impediment for the petitioner to mark the said document in evidence and proceed with suit. The impugned order of the Court below treating the transaction of mortgage in the aforesaid document as requiring registration is, therefore, clearly severable from that part of the suit document, which is in the nature of a demand promissory note. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 15, 2010 DSK [1] 2005 (5) ALD 206 [2] 2004 (2) ALD 315