THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4555 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.106 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The respondent/plaintiff filed aforesaid suit for cancellation of registered sale deed. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.489 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.39 situated at Nellutla Village of Lingala Ghanpur. In the said I.A., at the time when the evidence was let-in by the parties, some documents were marked. But, there was an objection raised by the respondent with regard to a document, dated 21.06.2009, which was sought to be marked on behalf of the petitioner. The Court below passed order, dated 21.09.2010, by recording a finding that the document, dated 21.06.2009, is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only for collateral purpose to show possession of the petitioner, the document in question was sought to be marked. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1] On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that as the document in question was not properly stamped and registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. A perusal of the contents of the document in question reveals that the petitioner/defendant is claiming rights with regard to very same land by transfer from one Mr. Peraboina Gundalu. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for in the main suit, which is for cancellation of sale deed, it cannot be said that this document can be marked for collateral purpose to show possession. When the petitioner is relying on the document in question to claim title over the suit land, recitals of that document show transfer of rights with regard to subject land and that the document in question is inadmissible in evidence because it was not properly stamped and registered. In BONDAR SINGH’s case (1 supra), which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held that unstamped and unregistered sale deed can be looked into for collateral purpose but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, afore-cited decision does not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni [1] (2003) 4 SCC 161