- (1.)Chintam Kantam, the revision petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.296/96 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the 3rd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in the suit.
(2.)The revision petitioners aggrieved by an order dated 30-6-2003 made in O.S. No.296/96 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada relating to the admissibility of a document dated 27-9-1994 had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The suit O.S. No.296/96 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada was filed praying for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27-9-1994 directing the 1st defendant to execute a registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the said agreement, for recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the 1 st defendant and for certain other appropriate reliefs.
(3.)When respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed their affidavits relating to the chief- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 with a memo and made an attempt to mark the agreement of sale dated 27-9-1994 as Ex.A-1, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd defendant in the suit - the present revision petitioner, had raised an objection to the marking of the said document on the ground that the same is inadmissible in evidence and unless respondents 1 and 21 plaintiffs pay the stamp duty and penalty, the same cannot be marked. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd defendant had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.