THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4298 OF 2010 Dated: 01.10.2010 Between: Ravindra Chowdary ..... PETITIONER AND Dabbara Madhava Naidu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4298 OF 2010 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.104 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, which is filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12.02.2007. During the evidence, on behalf of the plaintiff the agreement of sale was sought to be marked as Ex.A1. At that stage, the defendant raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document on the ground that the document was unregistered and unstamped. The objection was overruled by the Court below by order dated 07.10.2009. Thereafter, the defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2010 under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to review the order dated 07.10.2009 contending that the Court below did not record any finding as to the petitioner’s objection that the document was not even stamped. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 25.02.2010 disposed of I.A.No. 2 of 2010 granting liberty to the defendant /revision petitioner to raise the objection with regard to the admissibility of the document in question, which was already marked as Ex.A1, at the stage of the hearing of the suit. It was also made clear that if the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, the Court may exclude such evidence from consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the order under revision suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The conclusion of the Court below is in accordance with the settled principles of law and therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ Date: 01.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd