HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1775 OF 2010 DATE:24-06-2011 BETWEEN U.Ankallu @ Venkulu …Petitioner AND Y.Ravi and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1775 OF 2010 ORDER: Second defendant is in revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the docket order of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, dated 19.4.2010 passed in I.A.No.174 of 2008 in O.S.No.61 of 2008 marking Ex.A.1-agreement of sale subject to objections with regard to stamp duty and penalty and marking Exs.P.2 to P.8 and Exs.R.1 to R.10. Plaintiff-first respondent herein instituted the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 7.3.2001 contending that the first defendant-second respondent herein sold the suit schedule property in his favour under the said agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.5,40,000/- and received Rs.2.00 lakhs as advance and further received Rs.95,000/- as per the agreement and acknowledged the same on the back of the agreement. The first defendant instructed the second defendant to deliver the possession of the schedule land to the plaintiff –first respondent herein vide letter dated 23.7.2001 and accordingly, the second defendant delivered the possession of the land to the plaintiff on 30.7.2001 and since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Pending the suit, the plaintiff sought for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. In the said I.A., while marking the other documents, the agreement of sale was also marked subject to objections with regard to the stamp duty and penalty and the parties were directed to proceed with the I.A. and as both the sides filed written arguments, the matter was posted to 23.4.2010 for orders. At that stage, the petitioner-second defendant filed the present revision and obtained interim stay of trial initially, for a period of eight weeks, which was extended by four more weeks on 25.6.2010 and further extended by six weeks on 30.7.2010. Thereafter the stay was not extended, but the lower Court has not decided the impugned I.A. Marking of the documents in the impugned I.A. subject to payment of stamp duty and registration will not entitle the plaintiff to mark the same in the suit if it is unstamped or unregistered as held by this Court in Burra Anitha v. Elagari Mallavva and others (2010 (5) ALD 438). Whether the documents can be marked in evidence or not or those documents have to be impounded are matters to be decided by the lower Court in the main suit. In view of the same, mere marking of the document in the interlocutory application is not a ground to mark the same in the suit unless the same is impounded. Therefore, no illegality is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The lower Court shall decide the I.A. expeditiously. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 24, 2011 Tsr.