IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5302 of 2010 Between: The Manakondur Large Size Cooperative Society Ltd., Manakondur & another … Petitioners And: Dusa Koteshwar …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5302 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 27.08.2010 in IA No.121 of 2010 in OS No.315 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 13 Rule 3 and 6 CPC requesting the Court to reject Ex.A.1 lease deed as inadmissible in evidence by renumbering the other exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.72,000/- from the defendants towards rent for the suit premises allegedly due under the agreement of sale dated 01.12.2005. According to the plaintiff, the lease was for 3 years, but the petitioners/defendants vacated the house within two months after entering into the lease and without giving any two months notice as required under the terms of the lease and thereby caused loss to the plaintiff by way of rents in a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. The plaintiff therefore seeks to rely upon the lease deed dated 01.12.2005, which is marked as Ex.A.1. The defendants filed application IA No.121 of 2010 for rejection of the said document on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence, as the same purports to be an agreement of lease for three years, but not registered. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the document was already marked as Ex.A.1 and at the time of marking the document, no objection was raised and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek rejection of the document, which was already marked. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at the time of the marking document, learned counsel for the defendants was not prudent and therefore, the objection regarding marking of the document could not be raised. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the lease deed was already marked as Ex.A.1 and some other documents are also marked consecutively. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lease agreement being one for three years and not having been registered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. 5. It is to be noted that the said document is marked as Ex.A.1 and the same is subject to proof and relevancy only. That apart, it is open to the petitioners/defendants to always contend at any subsequent stage of proceedings also that the contents of the said document cannot be looked into and the same has to be eschewed from consideration and the said evidence is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. When once the document is already marked and number is also assigned to it, the question of rejecting the said document at a subsequent stage and renumbering the other documents which are already marked does not arise. The petitioners are at liberty to request the Court at an appropriate stage of the proceedings to eschew the document from consideration on the ground that it is inadmissible for want of registration and therefore cannot be relied upon and on such objection being raised, the trial Court may dispose of the same on its own merits. 6. In the result, subject to the liberty given above, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.08.2011 bss