THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3887 AND 3904 OF 2007 DT.17.06.2010 Between: C.R.P.NO.3887 OF 2007: P.Nagalingeswara Rao ………Petitioner Vs. Vadapalli Bhaskara Raju …………..Respondent. C.R.P.No.3904 OF 2007: v.china Rao ……Petitioner Vs. V.Bhaskara Raju ………………Respondent. O R D E R: Since the issue raised in both the revision petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and are being disposed of. C.R.P.No.3887 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of t he Constitution of India, assailing the order passed in I.A.No.1335 of 2007 in O.S.No.609 of 2004, dated 26.07.2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 49 of Registration Act, read with 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, read with Section 51 C.P.C., seeking to collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the sale agreement, dated 03.12.1990 and possessory sale agreement, dated 27.06.2005 was rejected. C.R.P.No.3904 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to assail the order passed in I.A.No.1334 of 2007 in O.S.No.603 of 2004, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for the same relief as sought for in I.A.No.1335 of 2007 was also rejected. Heard Sri S.Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and though served, none appeared for the respondent. It is seen from the record that at the time of marking the documents, the petitioner raised an objection in marking two documents such as sale agreement and possessory sale agreement, for the reason that they are having defects. The court below did not consider the request of the petitioner and dismissed the applications on the ground that when once the documents are admitted in evidence and were marked as exhibits, objection cannot be raised thereafter. Hence, the present revision petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in R.V.E.VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P.TEMPLE AND ANOTHER[1], wherein it was held that there cannot be any bar to go into such objections. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is always open for the petitioner to call back all such objections at the time of arguments and necessarily, the court below has to consider such objections. Hence, the revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the court below to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders afresh, independently and on merits. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.17.06.2010 tjs [1] ) 2004 (1) ALD 18 (SC)