THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.782 of 2010 12.03.2010 Between: Abburi Vara Prasad ….Petitioner AND Suserla Ramachandra Murthy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.782 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.136 of 2008 (hereafter called, eviction suit). The respondent herein (hereafter called, plaintiff) filed the suit for eviction from suit schedule land admeasuring 206 square yards with terraced building with bearing No.2-2-47 situated at Nidadavole town. The petitioner is contesting the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff executed possessory agreement of sale dated 18.10.1999 In his favour. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.207 of 2009 (hereafter called, specific performance suit) on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 18.10.1999. When the eviction suit was coming up for trial, the petitioner obtained certified copy of agreement from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur and filed the same along with his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The Court below refused to accept the same and directed the petitioner to produce the original by 14.12.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.13 of 2010 under Order XIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to send for the original agreement of sale from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. By impugned order, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, present civil revision petition is filed. At the stage of admission itself, respondent appeared and counsel opposed civil revision petition. Two submissions are raised. It is contended that earlier the petitioner produced xerox copy of the agreement of sale, dated 18.10.1999 and therefore, the question of production of agreement does not arise. Secondly, being unregistered document it cannot be received in evidence. He also submits that under Order XIII Rule 10(3) of CPC unless a document which is sent for is relevant for the issue that arises in the suit cannot be called for. This Court has considered the argument and perused the record. However, the petitioner alleged that initially he produced certified copy and was sought to be marked as Ex.B.1 and that the Court refused to receive the same. In the counter filed in I.A., there is no specific denial. Indeed, the Court below also does not mention about this aspect of the matter. Secondly, that the Court directed the petitioner to produce original document cannot denied. While dismissing the petition, the Court below observed as under. Heard. Perused the petition affidavit and counter. It appears unregistered possessory agreement of sale sought to be sent for the document dated 18.10.1999 to be marked as exhibit in this suit. Previously Court directed to file original document, but not complied i.e., 14.12.2009. Hence, the petitioner is directed to obtain the original agreement of sale from concerned court and file the same. As per Order XIII Rule 10(3) of CPC, this Court cannot receive into evidence as it is the possessory agreement of sale dated 18.10.1999 which was unregistered one to consider the application. When an application is filed to send for the documents from other Courts, the question of relevancy cannot be gone into. It is oly at the time of marking the document in evidence that sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 is attracted. It is to the effect that mere sending for the document from the other Courts does not enable the Court to use any document in evidence so inadmissible in law. Therefore, even if original possessory agreement of sale is sent for, it is always open to the respondent to raise objection with regard to stamp duty, admissibility and evidentiary value. As the Court itself directed that the petitioner to produce original document, the application filed ought to have been allowed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 29.01.2010, is set aside and I.A.No.13 of 2010 stands allowed. The Court below is requested to send for the original possessory agreement of sale dated 18.10.1999 filed in O.S.No.207 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. It is agreed by both the counsel that the matter is at the stage of recording defendant’s evidence, the matter may be disposed of as early as possible within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.03.2010 Pln