IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTIEIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 646 OF 2011 Between: Smt. P.B.A. Perindevi Tayaru … Revision Petitioner Respondent-Plaintiff V/s. K.A. Krishnamacharyulu & 11-Ors. … Respondents-Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Anantha Chary Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following judgment (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 646 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 01-2-2011 passed in I.A.No. 146 of 2011 in OS.No. 61 of 2007 by the I-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 5 under Order-8, Rule 1- A (3) of CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents mentioned in the list. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the records. 3. I.A. No. 146 of 2011 in OS.No.61 of 2007 was filed by defendants 1 to 5 under Order-13, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to condone the delay in filing the three documents, which include unregistered and unstamped sale deed dated 5-05-1976. The other documents are registered documents. The Revision Petitioner objected for marking the said documents on the ground that they are irrelevant and they do not relate to the subject matter of dispute between the parties and more particularly that the document No.2 i.e., unregistered and unstamped sale deed dated 15-05-1976 cannot be marked for want of registration and stamp duty. Admittedly the said document is relevant and it was not registered. However, the learned Court below referring the decision of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court held that though the documents which require registration after properly stamped can be admitted into evidence and relied upon only for collateral purpose as provided in proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The trial court further held that since the other two documents are registered documents, they can be marked and the revision petitioner cannot take objection for marking the said documents. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the undertaking given by the respondents to pay stamp duty and penalty on unregistered document dated 15-05-1976 held that the unregistered document though styled as agreement of sale, it is compulsorily registerable but not registered and stamped and that the documents can be marked subject to any objections as to the admissibility and relevancy which can be decided at an appropriate time. 4. The said order is challenged in this revision. In view of the settled legal position, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court and the findings cannot be called in question in this revision, since they are passed in accordance with law. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO 28-02-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 646 OF 2011 CIRCULATION No. 28 Date: 28-02-2011 Court Master : I s L