THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 1197 of 2010 O R D E R: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against a docket order made on 4.3.2010 in I.A. No. 90 of 2010 in O.S. No. 168 of 2001 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act read with 151 CPC to send the document to Sub-Registrar, Buchireddypalem for impounding the document, was dismissed. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants. Plaintiff laid suit in O.S. No. 168 of 2001 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering into the usage of the passage in the schedule property. During pendency of the suit, while PW-1 was being examined, a document dated 10.5.1998, purported to be an agreement/arrangement between the parties as to usage of passage, was sought to be marked as an exhibit. Respondents have taken objection for the same. The Court below, by a docket order, held as under: “This petition is filed with a prayer for sending the agreement dated 10.5.98 to the S.R.O. for impounding. The respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner. This Court by its order dated 4.2.10 in the suit held that the said document requires registration and stamp duty even if the prayer of the petitioner herein is entertained the defect of registration cannot be cured. The document relied upon by the petitioner is the basis for the suit and therefore it cannot even said to be received for collateral purpose. Therefore mere impounding does not cure the defect and no purpose would be served by impounding. Hence, petition is dismissed”. Aggrieved thereby, present C.R.P. is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that even as per the counter filed by the respondents, the Court below could have ordered for impounding of the document. Simply because petitioner asked the Court to send the document to be impounded by the Sub-Registrar, it does not mean the Court below can dismiss the application as noticed above. The Court below ought to have taken up the matter as to impounding of the document and as to admissibility in evidence instead of dismissing the same. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Gopala Krishnan strenuously contended that even if the document is impounded by the Court, it would not serve any purpose as it cannot be admitted in evidence, since the whole suit is based on the said document wherein an interest is created in immovable property for enjoyment in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, it has to be compulsorily registered. Be that as it may, under the above circumstances I am of the opinion, the Court below has made a pedantic approach by dismissing the application. Since it has the power to impound the document, it could have examined the same and ordered for payment of requisite stamp duty etc. Instead of doing that, dismissing the application in toto is not called for. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the matter is remitted to trial Court for re-consideration of the document for being impounded by the Court itself and, so far as admissibility of the document is concerned, to examine the same after hearing both the parties and pass appropriate orders, as per law. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 05-8-2010. MVB.