THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:467 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 11.12.2008, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in I.A.No.404 of 2008 in O.S.No.147 of 1991 whereunder application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to mark document, dated 04.03.1981, to the extent of proving the aspect of “doing some work and making payment” as mentioned in the agreement, was dismissed. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The petitioners laid suit in O.S.No.147 of 1991, for recovery of money, on the basis of the agreement dated 4.03.1981. During the pendency of the suit, present application is filed to mark document dated 4.03.1981 to the extent of proving the aspect of “doing some work and making payment” as mentioned in the agreement. The application was resisted by respondents/defendants stating that petitioners are inclined to bye-pass the earlier order dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, contending a different version, by saying that the document in question is severable into two, and the contents, which does not touch creation of charge over the immovable property, be alone taken as a piece of evidence and the rest of the document be left unconcerned; the theory of severance of document at this belated stage is quite impermissible, as the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore had already held that the document in question is inadmissible in evidence; therefore under the principle of re judicata, the present petition is not maintainable under law and this Court in C.R.P.No.3398 of 1998 also confirmed the orders of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, made in O.S.No.78 of 1997, dated 29.07.1998, and hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, present revision petition is filed. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to put up appearance. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Suffice it to notice that similar application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore vide order dated 29.07.1998, and the same was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3398 of 1998 dated 7.04.2000, The order passed in C.R.P.No.3398 of 1998 reads as under. “There is no dispute that the document dated 4.03.1981 was sought to be introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, under which a charge was created over the immovable property. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this aspect. In such an event when a document purported to create a charge over the immovable property, it is to be compulsorily registered unless the value is below Rs.100/-. With regard to the issue in this C.R.P., when once it is found that the document create a charge over immovable property, there is no escape except to get the document registered, otherwise it is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner tries to rely on number of decisions, which are not necessary to be gone into, as the provision itself is very specific on this aspect. Under these circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously as it was stated before this Court that the suit was originally instituted in the year 1983 and still it has not seen the light of the day, and dispose of the suit O.S.No.78 of 1997 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Now a new theory is sought to be introduced by the petitioners saying that at the time of disposal of C.R.P.No.3398 of 1998, dated 7.04.2000 by this Court doctrine of severability was not pressed into service. Therefore, that necessitated petitioners to file the present application. If doctrine of severability is applied, only to the extent of proving the transaction between the parties under agreement dated 4.03.1981, the document can be admissible in evidence. I am of the considered opinion that for the purpose of admissibility of a document, entire recitals of the document should be taken into consideration but not a stray sentence or an isolated part of the document. A combined and harmonious reading of the disputed document, according to the trial Court, clinchingly shows that the document, which creates charge over an immovable property, without registration is not admissible in evidence. Though some judgments were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same was rejected by the trial Court. Insofar as res judicata was concerned, the judgment reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, v. State of U.P.[1] was relied upon, and ultimately the application was rejected. I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once the document has been rejected for being admitted in evidence and the same has attained finality in C.R.P.No.3398 of 1998 before this Court, the question of raising some other grounds seeking admissibility of the said document, does not arise. Any order passed contrary to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier C.R.P., would amount to tinkering with the orders passed by this Court, which attained finality, or circumvent the orders passed in the earlier C.R.P. Further, the doctrine of severability has no application for interpreting a document for the purpose of its admissibility, in a case of this nature. Therefore, the present revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J.) 14th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2005 (2) APLJ SC 1