THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6177 of 2010 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District and Defendant No.3 therein are the petitioners in this C.R.P. Defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit filed an application in I.A.No.419 of 2010 requesting the Court below to discard the un-registered gift deed dated 25-01- 1967 which was marked in evidence by the plaintiff as Ex.A-25. By order dated 18-11-2010, the Court below allowed the said application and held that the document in question (Ex.A-25) was not admissible in evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 approached this Court by way of this revision. Heard Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiff and Defendant No.3 and Smt A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 and 2. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the Court below. The suit, O.S.No.30 of 2007, was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of her title and a perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property situated at Toopran Village in Medak District. The plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-25 in evidence during the trial. The bone of contention in this Civil Revision Petition is Ex.A-25, an un-registered gift deed dated 25-01-1967. The case of defendants 1 and 2 was that the said document was marked through a petition without hearing them. They accordingly moved the subject application requesting the Court below to discard the said document from the evidence. The Court below, having considered the matter, opined that being an un-registered gift deed, Ex.A-25 was in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, which required the document to be registered to be valid in law. It accordingly held that the said document was in-admissible and allowed the application. Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the judgment of this Court in Mulla Alamsabgari Dastigiri v. B. Pullamma[1] to support his contention that the document, having already been marked in evidence ought to have been retained, subject to the objection by the other side as to its admissibility, till the adjudication of the issues arising in the suit. Perusal of the judgment reflects that the trial Court in that case admitted the document subject to the objection raised and aggrieved thereby, the other side invoked the revisional power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, a learned Judge of this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State, Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors[2], held that any document may be tentatively received in evidence subject to objection and it is always open to the Court to decide such objection at the time of final judgment by recording a finding and the aggrieved party can agitate the same in appeal. There is no dispute with the above proposition. However, it is to be noted that the Court below is empowered under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible at any stage of the suit, recording the grounds for such rejection. Once this statutory provision vested the trial Court with a discretion and such discretion is exercised with proper reasons, as in the present case, no cause is made out to interfere with such an order, in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The order of the Court below clearly reflects the reasons as to why it held the un-registered gift deed (Ex.A-25) to be inadmissible. That being so, this Court finds no error in the order warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J August 26, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6177 of 2010 August 26, 2011 PN [1] 2004 (4) ALD 82 [2] (2003) 6 S.C.C. 641