THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2895 OF 2009 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 23.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.834 of 2009 in O.S.No.1411 of 2003 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the present revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant. The above said I.A. was filed by the revision petitioner under Order 8 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying the court to receive certain documents in evidence by condoning the delay, if any. The Court below held that the two sale agreements said to be executed on insufficiently stamped papers are not admissible in evidence as the same are also unregistered and the other documents, being public documents, can be received in evidence and accordingly partly allowed the petition and dismissed the same in respect of the two insufficiently stamped agreements of sale. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed before the Court. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondents seeking injunction simplicitor against the revision petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the documents relating to the suit transaction though were mentioned in the list of documents, due to misplacement of the papers, the same could not be filed before the court at the time of adducing evidence and subsequently those documents could be traced out and since they are very essential for disposing of the suit, the present petition is filed to receive the same in evidence. There can be no dispute about the well-settled principle that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose and, therefore, such a question requires determination at the threshold. However, in the case on hand, the documents in question are only Agreements of Sale and the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. If the same are not accepted in evidence, it may cause prejudice to the revision petitioner. Since the only dispute is with regard to payment of stamp duty, the same can be considered at the time of marking the document and the same can be received subject to proof and relevance. In the circumstances, the impugned order so far as it relates to dismissing the petition in respect of two unregistered insufficiently stamped agreements is set aside and the trial Court is directed to receive the said documents also subject to proof and relevancy. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. ..8..2009 msv