This Revision Petition has been filed by the third defendant in O.S.No.230 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli against the orders of the said Court, dated 13-02-2008.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. During the course of evidence, DW-1 was examined and through him, the defendants sought to mark a xerox copy of an unregistered sale deed. The plaintiff's counsel raised an objection that the document is not properly stamped; that it is an unregistered document; that the document is not properly visible and that it is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it shall not be marked. After hearing both parties, the Court passed the following order:

"The document executed by D.W.1 as Ex.B11 is seems to be a Xerox copy said to be executed on a Non-Judl. Stamp paper of Rs.20/-. The said document said to be executed on 13-11-1991, but the stamp paper purchased on 13-1-1992, further it is the contention of D.W.1 that he handed over the original to P.W.1 for the purpose of registration, but she refused to register it and retained by her. Not-withstanding to whereabouts the original, in my opinion, Ex.B11 is not admissible in evidence even as secondary evidence, because of improper stamp duty. Therefore, considering the objections of the plaintiff that document is not legible partly and some of the parts of the document such as extent of the land, signature of executants and the signature of the witnesses appears brightly. Under these circumstances, this court is of opinion that Ex.B11 is not admissible evidence as secondary evidence, in view of the improper stamp duty and it is not a registered document."

3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the third defendant preferred the present Revision by contending that under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 of C.P.C. and Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an unregistered sale deed cannot be held to be inadmissible at the stage of recording the evidence of DW-1 though the document is a Xerox coy of the original unregistered sale deed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Earlier, the defendants filed I.A.No.204 of 2006 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to receive and mark the xerox copy of the sale deed as secondary evidence. When the Application was dismissed by the lower Court, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.6016 of 2006 challenging the said order before this Court and this Court, through the order, dated 03-08-2007 allowed the Revision Petition by setting aside the order in I.A.No.204 of 2006 and allowed the Revision Petition by granting leave to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the said document.

5. The revision petitioner, by relying on the order of this Court, contends that the lower Court is not entitled to reject the documents from marking on behalf of the defendants without giving an opportunity to them to adduce secondary evidence as to why the petitioner filed a Xerox copy of the original sale deed and what happened to the original sale deed.

6. In the earlier Revision Petition, the petitioner contended that the rejection of the Application to receive the xerox copy of the unregistered sale deed, without giving opportunity to the petitioner of adducing secondary evidence, is not justified, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. In support of the contentions, the petitioner's counsel relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in NAWAB SINGH v. INDERJIT KAUR, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: "Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the Court for production of secondary evidence. The prayer has been rejected mainly on the ground that the copy of the rent note sought to be produced by the appellant was of doubtful veracity. The trial Court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appella