THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4380 of 2007 Date: 27.10.2009 Between : M/s. Abhirama Super Market … Petitioner And P. Parandhamaiah and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4380 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.8.2007, in O.S.No.229 of 2004, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, refusing to receive the Lease Deed, dated 28.8.1998, as an evidence. 3. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. 4. The only question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is as the whether the document i.e., Lease Deed, dated 28.8.1998, sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is to be received by the Court subject to admissibility and relevancy or not? 5. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, sought to mark the document in question, which contains certain conditions regarding the lease. It is an admitted fact that there is a registered lease deed, by virtue of which the defendants have to vacate the schedule premises. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that by virtue of the contents of the other lease deed, dated 28.8.1998, which is unregistered, they have a right to continue in the schedule premises for some more time. 6. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff that since the document in question is not registered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. 7. The settled law is that when a specific contention is taken, it is for the Court to look into the aspect as to whether a particular document, which is sought to be marked as an evidence, is attracted by Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 or not? In other words, if the document in question is for collateral purpose, the same can be admitted into evidence. “Collateral purpose” is an exception to the general rule. The settled law is that it is always desirable that the Courts should be dissuaded from discarding any such documentary evidence, at the threshold. On the other hand, it is also stated that it is always expedient for the Courts to receive such a document subject to admissibility and relevancy. As a consequence, during the trial, the admissibility and relevancy of the document, which is sought to be admitted, will have to be tested on merits. Merely because the document was marked subject to its admissibility and relevancy, that does not mean that the document is already admitted and it will not attain the status of an admissible document. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff nor does it create any right on the defendants, who seek admission of the document in evidence, if the document is received in evidence. Receiving the document in question is only to the extent of examination of the aspect as to whether the said document falls within the scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act or not and nothing more. 8. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 27.8.2007, is set aside and the Court below is directed to receive the document in question with an endorsement that the same is received subject to its admissibility and relevancy and after framing necessary issues in an appropriate manner, the said question shall have to be answered on merits. 10. Since the suit is of the year 2004, I am of the considered view that it is always desirable for the Court below to dispose of the suit with utmost expedition, if necessary on priority basis, subject to cooperation by both the parties. 11. With the above observations and directions, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27.10.2009 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4380 of 2007 27.10.2009 (Msr)