- (1.) By way of this petition, the appellant has challenged the order dated 13-10-72 of the learned trial court dated September 8, 1966. The defendant produced Gobind Singh son of Kanhiya Lal Patel as witness and wanted this witness to prove an alleged receipt dated September 8, 1956, executed by the plaintiff - Petitioner in favour of Nihal Chand defendant-respondent. This was objected to by the learned counsel of the petitioner, but the learned sub Judge over-ruled the objection and exhibited the document as D.W. 6/A. The receipt is read before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not find that there is any recital of relinquishment in this document. It is only a receipt with regard to the execution of the past event and does not in any way relate to relinquishment of any property. It only contains the recital with regard to the past event. As it relates to immovable property, it does not require registration or stamp beyond the value of the ten paise. It is now well settled in such cases. A Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addanki Narayanappa and others v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and others, 1959 AIR(AP) 380, held as under. "That the interest of a partner in partnership assets cannot be regarded as a right or interest in immovable property within the meaning of section 17(l)(b) of the Registration Act. It follows that in so far as there is a relinquishment of their interest in the suit firm, by the plaintiffs and defendants 10 to 12 who executed Ex. B-18 the document does not require registration." Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Japer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, 1961 AIR(SC) 1655, observed as under : "Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the cake and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, section 36 comes into operation. Once a document has been admired in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a court of appeal or Revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a Court of superior jurisdiction."
(2.) It is quite clear from the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court that once a document is admitted and is marked as an Exhibit and has been used by the parties in examination-in-chief and cross-examination of their witnesses, section 36 of the Act comes into operation. It is then not open to the trial court or to the appellate Court or revisional Court to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial order, which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this petition as the document has already been admitted and marked by the trial court and this court on the revisional side cannot interfere. This petition, therefore, fails, and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;