THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3985 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession over the plaint schedule property. According to her she purchased the plaint schedule property as early as in the year 1995 and an agreement of sale dated 24.05.1995 was executed. Subsequently a regular registered sale deed was executed on 30.07.2004 vide document No.6421 of 2004. However, as there is threat of dispossession, as stated supra, the said suit was instituted for grant of perpetual injunction. In the said suit the petitioner got the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2004 marked as an exhibit. Along with the same they wanted the said unregistered agreement of sale deed dated 24.05.1995 also marked. However, the court below refused to mark the said unregistered agreement of sale on the ground that the same is unregistered. The same is questioned in this revision. 2 Despite service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to put in their appearance. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 This court is of the view that the court below is justified in refusing to mark the said unregistered agreement of sale as an exhibit. The recitals in the registered sale deed establish the fact that possession of the plaint schedule property was handed over to the petitioner only on the date of the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2004. In those circumstances in my considered view, the court cannot place reliance on the said unregistered document. Of course, the petitioner is trying to rely on the said unregistered document to establish their possession on the plaint schedule property right from the year 1995. But the same cannot be countenanced. However, the said document can be looked into for some other purpose other than the purpose for which the suit has been instituted. 5 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 29.01.2011 Kvsn