IMPORTANT POINT
There is little conflict as to rejection of any document which is already marked on\ ground that document is irrelevant or inadmissible in evidence after recording reasons.

1. The 4th defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 11.09.2015 over-ruling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 4th defendant about admissibility of possessory agreement or sale, dated 26.06.2012 marked as Ex.A.1.

2. The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court.

3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of marking possessory agreement of sale as Ex.A.1 objection could not be raised as it was marked in the affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC in lieu of examination in chief and learned counsel was sick on that day and therefore, questioning the admissibility of the possessory agreement of sale, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, filed memo bringing to the notice of the Court that the document is inadmissible, in view of Explanation to S.No. 47A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act and 17(1) of the Registration Act. The trial Court, considering the objection based on memo, passed an order holding that when the document is received in evidence, marked as exhibit without any objection, the same cannot be agitated at the subsequent stage, placing reliance on judgments of this Court in Shaik Qutubuddin S/o Shaik Ahmed and another v. Goli Vishwanatham S/o Mallesham and others (2004(2)ALD) 329), Cheryala Srinivas v. Moola Sujatha and others (2010(1) ALT 448) AND B.Bhaskar Reddy v. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami Reddy (died) per LRs and others (2010(6)ALD 307).

4. Questioning the propriety of the docket order referred supra, the present revision petition is filed.

5. Raising several contentions and one among the other is that mere marking of document as exhibit without applying mind, does not amount to admission of document in evidence and the revision petitioner is entitled to challenge the admissibility of the document at any time and Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not applicable to the present facts of the case. But the trial Court committed a grave error in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it. Therefore, it warrants interference of this Court and prayed to set aside the order placing reliance on Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others (2014) 1 SCC 618).

6. The respondents did not file any counter in view of the undisputed facts except disputing as to law.

7. The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Court did not apply its mind while marking the document as exhibit, it does not amount to actually admitting the document in evidence and such an objection about the admissibility of document in evidence can be raised at any stage, placed reliance on judgment reported in Athapuram Raghuramaiah and another v. Dyava Ramaiah (2012 (6) ALT 271), Vemireddy Kota Reddy v. Vemi Reddy Prabhakar Reddy (2004(3) ALD 187), and B.Bhaskar Reddy v. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami Reddy (died) per LRs and others (2010 Law Suit (AP) 445). On the strength of the above judgments, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order under challenge is erroneous and it is nothing but erroneous exercise of jurisdiction which conferred on the trial Court.

8. Per contra, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would contend that when the document is admitted in evidence, the same cannot be questioned at any subsequent stage except under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act and apart from that the document marked as Ex.A.1 though it styled as possessory contract of sale, the defendant denied delivery of possession. In such a case, admission of the contract of sale in evidence, marking the same as Ex.A.1 is not an error to set aside the same exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also placed reliance