THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH REW.C.R.P.MP.NO.2707 OF 2010 IN CRP.NO.1869 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This petition is filed to review the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by this court in C.R.P.No.1869/2009. The review petitioner is the petitioner in the revision and the plaintiff in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.293/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram for permanent injunction and after completion of evidence, he filed I.A.Nos.1018, 1019 and 1020 of 2008 for reopening of the matter, receiving of additional documents and to recall P.W.1 and the said I.As., were allowed by observing that the objections will be considered at the time of marking of the documents. The documents which were sought to be marked were original will dated 2.2.1916, certificate issued by V.A.O. Akividu about the genealogy of the plaintiff; certified copy of registered non-possessory agreement dated 4.9.1943; certified copies of depositions of three witnesses as documents 4 to 6; certificates issued by M.R.O., Akividu and original sale deeds, as link documents. At the stage of marking these documents, the defendant raised objections. By order dated 29.1.2009, the trial court in I.A.No.1084/2008, S.R.No.9360/2008 and on marking of documents filed along with the chief affidavit on 15.9.2008 in O.S.No.293/2002, considered the objections and out of Exs.A-16 to A-26, the trial court allowed to be marked only certain documents viz., document no.3, which is the certified copy of the non-possessory mortgage deed dated 4.9.1943, documents 7,8 and 9, which are the certificates issued by M.R.O. concerned. The remaining documents were rejected. Challenging the order of the trial court in rejecting to mark all the documents, the plaintiff in the suit, filed the revision petition against the order dated 29.1.2009. 4. The trial court gave reasoning for rejecting the documents. The first document which was rejected was the will dated 2.2.1916. The plaintiff earlier filed an application in I.A.No.1330/2007 to receive certain documents along with the will. The counsel for the plaintiff served the copy of the alleged will along with the petition on the counsel for the defendant. However, though the said petition was allowed, owing to the objections raised by the defendant, the documents were not marked and hence the said documents were taken back by the counsel for the plaintiff. The served copy of the will along with the petition in I.A.No.1330/2007 was availing with the counsel for the defendant. The possession of the copy of the said will and its authenticity was not questioned. When the present petition is filed for receiving the will, the counsel for the defendant produced the copy and a comparison of the same disclosed that both are not tallying and the present will was found laminated and hence the could below held that it is not possible even to send to a handwriting expert for comparison. Therefore, the trial court, recording reasons, rejected to mark the will. The other document that was sought to be marked is certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Akivudu with regard to genealogy of the plaintiff. The V.A.O. cannot be authority to issued genealogy of the plaintiff and the certificate issued by him was not based on any official record. Hence, the trial court rejected to mark the said document. Further, the plaintiff sought to mark the depositions of certain witnesses in other suit. The said witnesses were admitted to be alive and hence, their depositions wee rejected to be marked by the trial court. Similarly as the plaintiff failed to explain the custody of original sale deeds of other persons, in his possession, the trial court rejected to mark the said documents. This court by considering the facts and circumstances, concurring with the reasoning of the trial court, dismissed the revision. 5. In the present review, the petitioner raised the following grounds: 1. The order dated 27.10.2009 in CRP.No.1869 of 2009 passed by this Hon’ble Court is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record and the same is liable to be dismissed. 2. This Hon’bl;e Court ought to have seen that will dated 2.2.1916 was produced by the revision petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru to appoint him as the founder family member of Sri Vanuvulammavari Temple Akiveedu and basing on the said will the revision petitioner was appointed as founder family member and the proceedings issued by the Authority was also marked as Ex.A-11 in the present suit and so the decision of the Trial court in rejecting the said will is not admissible in evidence is not correct. 3. The Hon’ble Court though referred the judgments reported in 2001(3) SCC 1 and 2004(4) ALD 82 in the order, no discussion is made as to the applicability of the ratio laid down in the said judgments, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. This Hon’ble Court did not consider the fact that the respondents filed I.A.No.1084 of 2008 to compare the Xerox copy of the will dated 2.2.1916 with the original filed by the revision petitioner, but the trial court without ordering for comparison straightaway decided that the will dated 2.2.1916 is not admissible in evidence, which is beyond the scope of the relief sought for in I.A.No.1084 of 2008 and the same is without jurisdiction. 5. The Hon’ble Court did not consider the vital aspect that whether in an application to compare a copy of document with original, can the court without directing such comparison reject the reception of the will dated 2.2.1916. 6. The Hon’ble Court failed to observe that the will relied on by the petitioner dated 2.2.1916 is neither liable for any stamp duty nor requires registration and such document can be received in evidence and the genuineness of the said document can only be decided on letting evidence and by examining the persons connected to the said document. So the rejecting of the said document from reception in evidence is without any valid ground and is nothing but an error of law, which is liable to be reviewed.” 6. As already noted above, this court considering the arguments raised by respective counsel and the facts and circumstances, concurring with the reasoning of the trial court, dismissed the revision. The above grounds in the review does not constitute either ‘error apparent on the face of the record’ or ‘any other sufficient reason’ for reviewing the order passed in the revision petition and the review jurisdiction cannot be sought to be converted into appellate jurisdiction. 7. I do not find any merit in the review and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 11—07—2013