IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3005 OF 2007 Between: Khaza Mohiddeen Shareef .....PETITIONER AND Yayat Begum (died) and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3005 OF 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 09.04.2007, in O.S.No.959 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereunder and whereby, the objection raised by the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein/plaintiffs with regard to the marking of the document viz., HIBA, dated 26.06.1932, was over ruled and respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendants were permitted to mark the said document. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the document permitted to be marked by the trial Court is inadmissible under law for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, (for short, “the Act”) and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 contends that the document now sought to be received was already impounded and there are no grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. 4. The objection raised by the petitioner and respondent No.5/plaintiffs with regard to the marking of the document viz., HIBA, dated 26.06.1932, filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendants was over ruled and the document was received and marked. Simply, because the document is marked, it does not mean that the document has to be read as evidence. The admissibility and relevancy of the document have to be decided at appropriate stage after hearing both sides. Even if the document is inadmissible for want of registration, still the document can be used as evidence for collateral purpose as per proviso to Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to the admissibility and relevancy of the document to be decided by the trial Court at relevant point of time. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 28, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3005 OF 2007 September 28, 2010