( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 94 of 1991 on the file of the learned senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The said suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the petitioner s share in the suit schedule properties.

( 2 ) IT is evident from the record that whend. W1, during his examination-in-chief, filed. an insufficiently stamped and unregistered partition deed dated 22-3-1981 to receive the same as evidence by marking it as in exhibit, the petitioner-plaintiff took an objection for marking of the same. in the circumstances, the learned Senior Civil judge passed the docket order dt. 31-7-2001 admitting the said document into evidence, which reads as under:"after hearing the arguments of both sides, the partition deed which is unstamped and unregistered document though it is unregistered document and can be conferred on the status of admissibility upon the said document. So, the document which is an unregistered partition deed cannot be admissible in evidence, but it can be looked into for the collateral purpose for the limited purpose and also to show the severance of the status of the parties. Accordingly, the document can be admitted for the collateral purpose to show the intention of the parties and severance of the status at the time of the partition. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed anapplication in I. A. No. 188 of 2001 under section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the said order dated 31-7-2001. In the said application it -fated that when the D. W. 1 wanted to admit the said partition deed dated 22-3-1981 as evidence by marking it as an exhibit, the advocate for the petitioner- plaintiff raised an objection for marking of the same on the ground that the said document is not sufficiently and properly stamped and it is also not a registered one. It is further stated that the said document has been executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 5-40 paise, but as per Article 40 of schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the said partition deed has to be executed on a stamp paper the value of which should correspond to 3% of the value of the properties of the outgoing shareholder. It is also stated that by virtue of Section 35 of the indian Stamp Act, the document, which is not stamped or properly stamped, cannot be used in a Court of Law for any purpose. It was further stated that the document in question is compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act and, therefore, on account of non-registration, the said document cannot be received in the evidence. It is categorically stated that unless the said document is properly stamped, it cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose.

( 4 ) THE said review application has beendismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge by his order dated 24-8-2001. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:"in this review petition there is no such circumstances happen as the document is insufficiently stamped. But that fact is considered by this Court and the order was passed. Hence no new facts are arised in this review petition. Hence this petition is dismissed. "

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order dated24-8-2001, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

( 6 ) A perusal of the docket order dated31-7-2001 and the order passed in the review application dated 24-8-2001 clearly go to show that the petitioner-plaintiff has raised an objection at the time of marking of the document itself that the said document is insufficiently stamped and unregistered and, therefore, the same cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose. In the docket order dated 31-7-2001 it is noticed by the learned Senior Civil Judge that the partition deed was unstamped and unregistered. But contrary to the same, in the order dated 24-8-2001 made in LA. No. 188 of 2001 the learned Senior Civil judge states that there is nothing on record to show that th