1. The docket order, dated 03-02-2010 in I.A.No.383 of 2009 in O.S.No.103 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, led the plaintiff to approach this Court with this Revision.

2. While dealing with the petition for temporary injunction, the objection of the plaintiff against marking a simple sale deed on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty and want of registration was ruled out by the trial Court by the impugned order. Referring to three precedents from this Court, the trial Court was of the opinion that it is not open to the plaintiff to insist upon the Court to undertake an independent enquiry into the admissibility of the document at the interlocutory stage to pronounce upon the said document once for all. While recognizing the right of the plaintiff to take an objection if there is a legal infirmity or illegality, the trial Court opined that a document, which is not stamped or registered, can be marked in the interlocutory applications and the objection taken by the plaintiff is to be considered while disposing of the interlocutory application. Opining that there should be no objection for marking the document, the document was directed to be marked though there is no registration and sufficient stamp duty.

3. The plaintiff challenges the said order as being in violation of the mandate of Section 35 of the Stamp Act and also the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard and desires the marking of the inadmissible document to be reversed.

4. Smt. D. Radhika, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff, reiterated the contentions of the plaintiff, while none appeared for the respondents though respondents 2 and 3 and the counsel for the first respondent before the trial Court were personally served with the notices of this Revision.

5. The point for consideration is whether the stand taken by the trial Court about the marking of a document, which is unregistered and insufficiently stamped, at the interlocutory stage is sustainable.

6. Out of three precedents cited before the trial Court, in A.N. SARASWATHI v. G. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY 1997 (2) ALT 823, the learned Judge pointed out that the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice in specified provisions direct that the procedure in regard to the suits shall be followed as far as it is applicable to all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The learned Judge directed marking of the documents with the consent of the parties only in the interlocutory application for interim injunction and set aside the order directing admission of inadmissible documents.

7. Considering the question in T. BHOPAL REDDY AND ANR. V. K.R. LAKSHMI BAI AND ANR. 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court overruled the decision of a learned single Judge in G. SAMBRAJYAM v. P. MAHALAKSHMMA AND ORS 1995 (1) ALD 358, holding that there is no provision in Civil Rules of Practice for marking documents as exhibits at the stage of interlocutory matters. The Division Bench opined that the documents marked for the purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se, but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advanced. For that purpose, the Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know their contents and in the absence of any specific rule, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely on. Therefore, the Division Bench held that it was nowhere envisaged that the case of the contestant parties can only be decided on affidavit and not on any other material.

8. From a reading of these two decisions together, it is clear that even at the interlocutory stage, documents relied on by the parties can and have to be marked for the purposes of clarity to the Court and to enable the Court to appreciate th