IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4047 of 2008 BETWEEN: K. Sreenivasa Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Kunapareddi Venkateswarlu and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M. VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: In a suit O.S.No.44 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali for eviction instituted by the first respondent herein against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein, the petitioner while being examined as D.W.1 sought to mark certified copy of document described as lease deed dated 27.09.1997. An objection was raised by the plaintiff/respondent herein on the ground that the said document is not properly stamped and is unregistered and as such, is not admissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. The said objection was sustained by the trial Court against which the present revision is preferred by the petitioner/defendant. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid document sought to be marked is a certified copy of Ex.A1 marked in a connected suit O.S.No.222 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. The said suit was also a suit between the same parties instituted by the petitioner herein seeking injunction against the respondent. The very same document having been marked in the said suit as Ex.A1, the certified copy is sought to be produced and marked by the petitioner in the present suit. It is to be noticed that the document in question is a certified copy of a marked document, the objection relating to stamp duty and registration was available to the respondent/plaintiff when the said document was marked in the connected suit as Ex.A1 referred to above. 4. I am, therefore, not able to appreciate as to how the said objection can be sustained against a certified copy of a marked document. The impugned order of the trial Court disallowing marking of the said document, therefore, is not sustainable. Even otherwise the said document is said to be a lease deed for more than one year duration and as such, whether a valid lease is created thereunder under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 49 of the Registration Act is a matter, which shall be gone into by the trial Court during the final disposal of the suit. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set side. The petitioner shall be entitled to mark the said document subject to the objections, as aforesaid, to be gone into during the final disposal of the suit. The civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 3, 2010 DSK