THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1170 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: Venepally Rama @ Rangamma. ……..Petitioner/defendant. And Venepally Venkataiah and others. …… Respondent/defendants . THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1170 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 2.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge sustained the objection raised by the plaintiff with regard to the admissibility of the partition deed dated 27.7.2003. The petitioner is the 1st defendant and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2007. The respondents 2 & 3 are the co-defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner/1st defendant pleaded that the partition of the properties had been affected much prior to the filing of the suit. The petitioner/1st defendant sought to mark the document dated 27.3.2003 to substantiate his plea of earlier partition. The plaintiff raised an objection with regard to the marking of the said document. The learned Senior Civil Judge sustained the objection raised by the plaintiff and thereby refused to receive the document dated 27.7.2003 in evidence, by order dated 2.12.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 26.3.2010. Despite notice being served, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the partition of the properties had been affected prior to 27.7.2003 and the document filed as a partition deed is only an evidence of earlier partition. A further submission has been made that the document is sought to be marked for collateral purpose. I have gone through the document, which is in Telugu, and the recitals of the document are very clear that division of properties has been affected under the document among the members of the family i.e., Venkaiah & Butchaia on 27.7.2003. There is no recital in the document that the property had already been divided and the document was being executed as an evidence of the earlier partition. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court whereunder the objection raised by the plaintiff with regard to the marking of the document has been sustained. Accordingly, the revision fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:19.7.2010 mrb