1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 14.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.403 of 2025 in O.S.No.258 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit and respondent herein defendant and parties referred here as referred at court below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the trial Court erroneously admitted the Ex.B8 which is a compromise memo statement filed before C.C.Nos.533 & 534 of 2016. The said criminal proceedings were also arisen between the petitioner and the respondent only. He further submits that the trial Court erroneously admitted Ex.B8 even though the recitals of the compromise memo speaks about relinquishment of rights regarding an immovable property by the petitioner herein in favour of the respondent, but the trial Court admitted that the said document without there being any registration or required stamp duty.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 any transfer or relinquishment of immovable property is compulsory a registrable document. As per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, any non-registration of document in respect of transfer of immovable property, the affect of non-registration of such document shall not affect any immovable property covered by it or confer any right to adapt and it cannot be receive as evidence. Therefore, admitting Ex.B8 as admissible document is contrary to Rules 17 and 19 of the Registration Act,1908. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, the entire contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner revolves upon that the subject compromise memo is not a compromise memo, it is a document under which the plaintiff relinquished her rights in respect of subject schedule property in favor of the respondent, born out of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.533 & 534 of 2016 and such document without any registration and without paying stamp duty as contemplated under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908, cannot be admissible is not valid contention and also unsustainable for the reason that the recitals of compromise memo filed in a court proceedings can be construed as statement of particular party and cannot be a deed document/relinquishment of any rights over subject property as alleged by the petitioner. Further such statement of compromise memo can be deferred or contest by the party concerned by adducing her evidence and under what circumstances are prompted her to make such statement or she can also admit/agree for the statement, it is for the party in her evidence. Therefore, the very presumption of petitioner construing the statement of compromise memo as deed/relinquishment deed and requires stamp duty and registration under Sections 17 of the Registration Act, is contrary to law. Therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and came to conclusion that the objections of the petitioner are contrary to law and cannot be considered and also observed that the petitioner is entitled to adduce her evidence contrary to the compromise memo dated 14.09.2024 as stated supra.

7. In view of the reasons stated above, the order of the trial Court does not warrants interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.