IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No. 2 7 1 1 of 2006 Between: Mohammed Muneer Khan & 2-Ors. … Revision Petitioners V/s. Saleh-Bin-Mohammed & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: M/s. Y.Sudershan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents Sri Mir Masood Ali Khan THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CRP.No. 2 7 1 1 OF 2007 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 13-6-2007 passed in OS.No. 195 of 2003 by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for marking an insufficiently stamped and unregistered agreement of sale dated 06-11-2002 as Ex.A1 subject to objection, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants 4, 5 and 6. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge grossly erred in marking an insufficiently stamped and unregistered agreement of sale dated 06- 11-2002 as Ex.A1 subject to objection, in spite of the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioners and that the same in inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be marked. Secondly, the learned trial Judge ought to have refused to mark the said agreement of sale dated 06- 11-2002, as the same was insufficiently stamped and required for payment of stamp duty and penalty. But the court below ought to have decided at the threshold even before marking the said document with regard to payment of stamp duty and penalty. Without appreciating the fact that there is no controversy with regard to nature of the said document and the same required payment of stamp duty and penalty, the learned trial Judge should have returned the same for payment of stamp duty and penalty. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. On careful consideration of the order impugned in this Revision, it appears that the learned trial Judge already observed that the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioners will be considered at later stage. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused in so far as these petitioners are concerned, as the learned trial Judge observed that whatever objection the counsel for the petitioners raised will be considered at a later stage. 5. Under the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. But however, the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the main suit on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the suit, the learned trial Judge shall also consider the objection raised by these revision petitioners and answer the point on merit and in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 16-04-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 7 1 1 OF 2007 CIRCULATION ENTRY No.5 1 Date: 16-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43