ORDER :

T. RAJANI, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 24.8.2018, passed in IA No. 298 of 2018 in OS No. 56 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, by virtue of which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant, under Order XIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to demark Ex. A2-agreement of sale, which was allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The suit is filed for permanent injunction.

2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent.

3. The ground on which the Counsel for petitioner assails the order is that the lower Court ought to have not marked the document, as no collateral purpose exists in respect of the said document. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement of sale does not contain any recital that possession of the property was delivered to the respondent. A perusal of the agreement of sale, no doubt, shows that there is no recital to the effect that the property was delivered to the respondent. But the lower Court, somehow, considered that the document can be marked for proving collateral purpose. Be that as it may, the petition filed by the petitioner, in the lower Court, is not maintainable under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC, as the said provision does not prescribe the procedure for demarking a document, which is already marked before the Court. It only specifies that the Court may, at any stage of the suit, reject any document, which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.

4. In this case, the agreement of sale is filed alongwith the plaint. In the written statement, the petitioner herein does not take any plea that the document is not admissible. He only contends that the signature on the document is forged and that he intends to send the same to an Expert. Though the document was filed alongwith the plaint, the petitioner does not raise objection with regard to the said document, either in his written statement or at the time of marking it as Ex. A2, and hence, the lower Court might not have any other option except to mark the said document Proof and relevancy of a document is different from marking of the same. Hence, whether the contents of the document go to prove delivery of possession of the property to the respondent or not, is an aspect, which has to be gone into, while appreciating the aspect of proof of the document.

5. The judgments relies upon by the petitioner's Counsel, except one, do not have any relevancy on the issue involved in this revision. The first judgment reported in Lakkoji Mohana Rao v. Lakkoji Viswanadham, 2012 (3) ALD 327 : 2012 (3) ALT 476, is in respect of marking of document, which is not registered and which is inadmissible in evidence. But, in this case, the lower Court considered that the document is admissible for collateral purpose. However, this judgment does not throw any light with regard to the maintainability of the petition under Order XTTI Rule 3 CPC.

6. The second judgment in H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam, 2011 (3) ALD 147 (SC), is with regard to the obligation that the Court has in deciding the question of admissibility of document produced by way of secondary evidence. The document, which was marked by the lower Court, is not in the form of secondary evidence and hence, the said judgment does not help the petitioner.

7. The third judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in S. Mohan Krishna v. V. Varalaskhmamma, 2017 (5) ALD 228 : 2017 (5) ALT 264, also does not appear to be relevant, as it reiterates the procedure laid down under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC with regard to marking of document. The question involved in this revision is not with regard to procedural propriety of marking th