IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5798 OF 2007. Between: Sajjan Raj, J. Nahar & 3-Ors. … Revision Petitioners V/s. Munugala Venkat Reddy & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners : Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5798 OF 2007. O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking correctness of the order dated 17-9-2007 passed in OS.No.27 of 2006 by the First Additional District Judge, Mahbubnagar, upholding the objection for marking a document and sending the same to the District Collector, Mahbubnagar under section 38 of Indian Stamp Act, for the purpose of impounding. 3. The main ground urged by the revision petitioners is that having regard to the nature of clause and the principles laid down in S. Vijaylakshmi V/s. Boyapali Santhamma and another, reported in 2002 (5) ALT-406, there is no such warrant for exercise of such impounding and it does not require any such clause since that clause No.2 specifically contemplates only for the purpose of levelling and after considering the submissions and perusing the material and especially it necessitates to consider to extract the said clause No.2, which reads as hereunder: (2) That the vendors have also this day delivered the existing land at the spot vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the schedule of land to the vendees with a liberty to enjoy and develop the same in the manner he likes i.e., levelling and converting the same into plots. 4. A bare reading of the above clause shows that handing over possession is almost over and not restricted for a mere survey as pointed out in the aforesaid decision. Hence, the said decision has no application to the facts of this case. Hence, there are no merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO. 17-06-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5 7 9 8 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 9 2 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L Date: 17-06-2010