IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1452 OF 2009 Between : K.Sadashiva Rao .... PETITIONER A N D T.Babu Rao. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1452 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 27.02.2009 in O.S.No.394 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District, wherein, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.49 of 2009 and posted the matter for cross- examination of P.W.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ex.A.1, receipt, dated 11.09.2005, is neither a receipt nor the agreement of sale and therefore, it requires registration. 3. It is well settled that even a document, which is compulsorily regiserable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’) but is not registered, such a document can be used for collateral purpose in terms of Proviso to Section 49 of the Act. But only thing is such a document cannot be used for any purpose unless stamp duty and penalty is paid under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 4. Without adverting to question at this stage, whether Ex.A.1 receipt, is a compulsorily registerable document or not and to what extent the document can be used as evidence for collateral purpose are the questions to be decided by the trial Court after adducing evidence by both the parties. Therefore, it is need less to observe that marking of Ex.A.1 is subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 07, 2011. YVL