Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.

2. This Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 28.05.2008, granted interim stay as prayed for in C.R.P.M.P.No.2810 of 2008. The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition filed C.R.P.M.P.No.4733 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay granted in C.R.P.M.P.No.2810 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 aforesaid. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing the learned counsel on record made a request for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition itself and hence, this Court had taken up the Civil Revision Petition for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order, dated 03.05.2008 made in O.S.No.158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. At the time of marking document, dated 01.10.1980, an objection was taken on the ground that since it is a lease deed, it requires registration and hence, the same cannot be marked.

4. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons, came to the conclusion that the document be received in evidence and be marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

5. Sri Anantha Krishna, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in permitting the marking of the document in question, instead of rejecting the same, since it is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel also had taken this Court through Section 17 of the Act and also Section 49 of the Act as well and further pointed to the contents of the document and would maintain that in the light of the recitals of the document in controversy, inasmuch as the first respondent-plaintiff intends to rely on the said document for the purpose of establishing the factum of landlord and tenant relationship this being the principle question or controversy in the suit, it cannot be said that such document can be marked for collateral purpose. When that being so the order impugned in the civil revision petition being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court reported in Kalyanapu Venkatalaxmi V. Kalyanapu Ramudu 2007 (4) ALT 9.

6. On the contrary, Sri Ch. Dananyaja, the learned counsel representing the first respondent-vacate petitioner/plaintiff would maintain that the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, against the defendants for eviction and also for damages for use and occupation and in the course of evidence, first respondent-plaintiff sought to mark a document and the revision petitioners raised an objection that the said document requires registration under Section 17 of the Act and since it is an unregistered document, it cannot be admitted in evidence to prove the factum of the relationship of landlord and the tenant. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the recitals specified in the document in question, this may not fall under the lease deed but at the best it can be said to be an agreement between the parties and hence, came to the conclusion that the same can be marked. The learned counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the order under challenge, and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petition is to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel.

8. The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the order, dated 03.05.2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. No doubt, strong reliance was placed in Kalyanapu Venkatalaxmi V.Kalyanapu Ramud