THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2935 of 2010 Dated:15th July, 2010 Between: Boinapally Ranga Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1. Manthri Radhamma & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2935 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 07.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.663 of 2010 in O.S.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. The petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Initially the suit was filed for injunction and subsequently, the plaintiffs got the plaint amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. Once the suit ended in dismissal on 28.08.2008. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.849 of 2008 under Order 9, Rule 9 r/w. Section 151 CPC, to set aside the dismissal order dated 28.08.2008 and to restore the suit to its file. The said application ended in dismissal and the plaintiffs challenged the order of dismissal by filing C.M.A.No.8 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Principal District Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and thereby dismissed the C.M.A. by order dated 03.12.2009. The plaintiffs filed CRP No.784 of 2010. The said CRP came to be allowed on 26.04.2010. Para.11 of the said order reads as hereunder: “Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order dated 03.12.2009 passed in CMA No.8 of 2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda be set side and the suit be restored to file subject to the following conditions: i. That on payment of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) towards costs to the respondents within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. The petitioners can either pay the costs directly to the respondents or deposit to the credit of the suit. In case the petitioners opt to deposit the costs to the credit of the suit, the respondents shall be permitted to withdraw the same. ii. That the petitioners/plaintiffs should complete entire evidence on their behalf in one sitting on suit being restored to its file.” It appears that the plaintiffs paid the costs and consequently, suit came to be restored to file. The plaintiffs commenced evidence on their behalf. They filed I.A.No.663 of 2010 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the document dated 27.12.1971 to the Collector for impounding. The defendants resisted the application by filing counter. The principal ground of objection raised by the defendants is that the document, even if it is impounded, is inadmissible in evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the plaintiffs, by order dated 07.07.2010. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/1st plaintiff. 3. When the CRP came up for admission, Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3/defendants. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-1st plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3-defendants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs intend to use the document-Sulahanama dated 27.12.1971 for collateral purpose, which is permissible subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty. 6. Per contra, leaned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the very basis for filing the suit is the document- Sulahanama dated 27.12.1971 and that the contention of their being in possession of the suit property has not been accepted by the trial Court in interlocutory application and they carried the matter by filing CMA and the CMA also dismissed and subsequently, they filed CRP before this Court, in which case, the question of getting the document impounded for collateral purpose does not arise. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.B.Saha &Sns. (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd.[1]. 7. Para.34 of the said judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that: 1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.” 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The background facts of the case have also stated in para.2 supra. The order of this Court in CRP No.784 of 2010 is very specific that the petitioners/plaintiffs should complete entire evidence on their behalf in one sitting on suit being restored to its file. The suit is of the year 2005. Once the suit was dismissed on 28.08.2008 and subsequently, it came to be restored to file. No attempt has been made by the plaintiffs from the date of institution of the suit till 30.06.2010 to get the document-Sulahanama dated 27.12.1971 impounded by the competent authority. It is only after five years of filing of the suit, they moved I.A.No.663 of 2010 on 30.06.2010 with a prayer to send the document to the Collector for impounding. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs’ contention of their being in possession has not been accepted by the trial Court in interlocutory application and the said finding came to be confirmed by the appellate Court in CMA as well as this Court in revision. Essentially, the petitioner/1st plaintiff wants to claim title on the basis of the document-Sulahanama dated 27.12.1971, in which case, even if it is impounded, it cannot be admitted in evidence for want of registration. There is no collateral purpose which is required to be considered in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th July, 2010. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2935 of 2010 Dated:15th July, 2010 [1] (2008) 8 SCC 564