HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2699 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 6 in O.S.No.2029 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit in O.S.No.2029 of 2003 is filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for injunction simplicitor with regard to a house property. During the course of trial, an unregistered sale deed, dated 18.03.1982 and another sale deed, dated 28.03.1982, which were alleged to have been executed by one Mr.M.S.Chandramouli, were sought to be marked on behalf of the first respondent-plaintiff. At that point of time, there was an objection by the petitioners with regard to the admissibility of the documents on the ground that those documents are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and as such, they cannot be marked and received. The Court below overruled the objections and ordered to receive the said documents in evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was based on the registered gift deed, dated 27.08.2003, and the sale deed, dated 07.06.1979, but there was no reference to the documents in question and as such, they are not relevant. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri T.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff, that relevancy of the documents sought to be marked is a matter to be gone into by the Court below at the time of adjudicating the suit, but the said ground cannot be a ground to reject the documents at this stage. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the only objection on behalf of the petitioners was with regard to inadmissibility of the documents on the ground of want of registration. The Court below having regard to the relief sought for in the suit and in view of proviso (3) to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 has held that the documents in question can be considered for collateral purpose to prove possession. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents in question are not referred to in the plaint, the fact remains that relevancy of the documents is a matter, which is to be considered by the Court below at the time of disposal of the suit and the same is not a ground to reject the documents at the stage of receiving evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any lacuna in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) Dt.06.09.2010 VGB