This revision is filed challenging the docket order dated 19.8.2003 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda in O.S. No.15/2001. By the impugned order, the court below overruled the objection raised by the 1st defendant while recording the evidence of P.W.1, with regard to admissibility of a document i.e., a conveyance agreement. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed this revision petition.

2. It is settled law that any document can be received by the court subject to objection and a finding can be recorded with regard to its admissibility and, if aggrieved, the same can be challenged in appeal. From the record it could be seen that in the evidence of P.W.1, an unregistered re-conveyance document was sought to be marked and the 1st defendant objected to the marking of the same, on the ground that the said document was not registered. As stated above, the court below overruled the objection of the 1st defendant and allowed the document to marked on the ground that registration is not required for re-conveyance agreement under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the re-conveyance document in question creates right in immovable property and hence the same is compulsorily registerable and as the said document was not registered, the same ought not have been received in evidence. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in KASHINATH BHASKAR v. BHASKAR VISHWESHWAR AIR 1952 SC 153 [LQ/SC/1952/9] . wherein it was held at paragraph No.16 that if the document itself creates an interest in immovable property, the fact that it contemplates the execution of another document will not exempt it from registration under Section 17(2)(v) of Registration Act, 1908.

4. The law declared by the Apex Court in the above judgment is unexceptionable. However, it is to be seen that if the document is admitted in spite of objection by the other side, the Same can be agitated in a superior court under Order 41, Rule 27 and Section 105 of C.P.C. by taking a specific ground in that regard. Further the Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in STATE, THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHI vs. NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSHAN GURU & ORS 2003(1) Decisions Today (SC) 490 suggested a procedure to be followed whenever an objection is raised during the evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence and further held that said procedure would save time in the trial court. The said portion of the judgment of the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 is extracted as under for ready reference:

"14. Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view thee is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in trial court, during evidence-taking stage would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can be determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses.

5. In the above judgment, the Apex Court further observed that revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly. The relevant portion at paragraph No.28 is extracted as under for ready reference:

"However the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary powers. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 would not be exercised “as the cloak of an appeal in disguise".

6. Admittedly in the present case the dispute is not with regard to deficiency of stamp duty of the document. Therefore, in view of the above judgment it is clear that any document can be received in the evidence subject to objection and it is always open for the court to decide such objection at the time of final judgment by recording a finding and the aggrieved party can agitate the same in appeal. From the above judgment it is also clear that the appellate court can decide the correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to admissibility of the document, which is objected to, and pass appropriate orders, without remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. From the above judgment, Their Lordships suggested the above procedure, since the same is not prejudicial to any party and also would save the time of trial and ordeal of the parties in preferring revisions at the interlocutory stage etc.

7. Hence, in my considered view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.