HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.166 of 2010 Date: March 5, 2010 Between: More Peddanna, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged 49 years, R/o.Parkal village and Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And Bochu Narsaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/o.Parkal village and Mandal, Warangal District, and another … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by order dated 24-11-2009, passed in I.A.No.373 of 2008 in A.S.No.79 of 2005, by the learned IV Additional District Judge (FTC) Warangal. This Court ordered notice before admission and learned counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to send notice to respondents by registered post acknowledgement due. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on their behalf. The petitioner-plaintiff claims possession by virtue of purchase of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has filed simple sale deed dated 24-04- 1994 executed by the second defendant, before the trial court itself, but, it was not marked. Having noticed the same, at the appellate stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.373 of 2008, under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to receive the said sale deed as additional evidence. The lower appellate Court, by recording a finding that though an unregistered document can be received as evidence for collateral purpose in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 rejected the said application on the ground that no case is made out to receive the evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. itself, it is stated the document in question was placed before the trial Court, but the same was not marked. It is further stated that during preparation of appeal, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the said document was not marked. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no valid reason is recorded by the court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the court below in I.A.No.373 of 2008 in A.S.No.79 of 2005 is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A. is allowed. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 5, 2010 MRR