1. Revision petitioners are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal. Petitioners assailed the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal dated 24.10.2013 admitting document marked as Ex.A26, which is an agreement dated 14.01.2003.

2. Suit is filed seeking declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.06.2001 and 24.07.2004 are null and void and that the plaintiffs are the owners of house bearing G.P.No.7-71 (old), Padmavathi Nagar Colony, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District; for mandatory injunction to remove illegal and unlawful constructions made by the defendants; direction to defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the land admeasuring 144.49 square yards in respect of the above premises; and direction to the defendants to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for unlawful and illegal occupation.

3. In support of their relief, one of the documents relied upon by plaintiffs is document dated 14.01.2003, which is an agreement between Goli Viswanatham and Dr. MD. Zaheer Ahmed and others. Plaintiffs intend to mark this document as Ex.A26 through one person, by name, Noor Jahan , who stood as prosecution witness no.9. P.W.9 filed an affidavit before evidence is recorded and during the course of the recording of evidence, P.W.9 affirmed the contents of the affidavit already filed and in view of the same, it is treated as chief-examination. Agreement dated 14.01.2003 is marked as Ex.A26 through P.w.9. Along with the above document, three other documents are marked as Exs.P27 to P29.

4. Petitioners objected for marking of the said documents. Taking note of the objection, Senior Civil Judge marked the documents as Exs.A26 to A29 recording that such marking is subject to objection raised by the counsel for the defendants. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri C.Naresh Reddy and learned counsel for respondents Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy.

6. Extensive submissions are made by the counsels on either side on the merits of the document marked as Ex.A26. In addition to the submissions on merits, the principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, the trial court erred in marking the document dated 14.01.2003 as Ex.A26 without deciding the objection raised by petitioners/defendants. The principal objection on marking the said document as an exhibit, by the petitioners, is that the document is insufficiently stamped, it was not registered and is not admissible in evidence.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on 1) Nori Srirama Sastri Vs. Nori Lakshmidevamma and others, (AIR 1957 AP 60)2) Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another,(AIR 2001 SC 1158) and 3) Sanjeeva Reddi Vs. Johanputra Reddi. (AIR 1972 AP 373).

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the document was marked, no objection was raised by the defendants and since no objections were raised and document is already marked, the present revision petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further contends that right or wrong once a document is marked, no court has jurisdiction to nullify the marking of the document and, therefore, present revision petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel also made extensive submissions justifying the correctness of the document in issue.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on 1) Dokka Joganna Vs. Upadrasta Chayadevi, (1997 (5) ALT 628)2) Isra Fatima Vs. Bismillah Begum and another,(2002 (5) ALD 660)3) Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal(2007(1) ALD 28 (SC)) and 4) Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and another.((2008) 4 SCC 530)

10. The point that arises for determination in this petition is whether the trial Court erred in marking the document described as agreement dated 14.01.2003 as Ex.A26 without first consider