ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the docket order, dated 05.01.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1341 of 2019 in O.S. No. 216 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District (for short “the Court below”).

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 216 of 2012, which was filed for grant of permanent injunction. The impugned I.A. No. 1341 of 2019 in O.S. No. 216 of 2012 was filed by the respondent/1st defendant under Order 26 Rule 5 and Section 151 of CPC before the Court below to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for recording his cross examination at his residence at Kadavakuduru Sand.

3. Heard Sri V. Naga Praveen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Sai Phanidra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court below is illegal, irregular and flagrant violation of law. He further submits that the Court below incorrectly held that the documents dated 13.4.1993 and 5.8.1995 are unregistered documents, which already have been impounded, the relevancy and genuinety of the document will be considered at the time of trial. The documents were marked as exhibits and directed the Advocate Commissioner to mark the documents and record the evidence of the defendants. Therefore, the finding of the Court below is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the docket order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others , (2010) SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court held that:

This Court then held that the first appellate court rightly took the view that under Section 49 of the 1908 Act, unregistered sale deed could be received in evidence to prove the agreement between the parties though it may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property. It was held:

“......The document has not been presented by the respondent to the Sub-Registrar at all for registration although the sale deed is stated to have been executed by the appellant as he refuses to cooperate with him in that regard. Therefore, various stages contemplated under Section 77 of the Act have not arisen in the present case at all. We do not think, in such a case when the vendor declines to appear before the Sub-Registrar, the situation contemplated under Section 77 of the Act would arise. It is only on presentation of a document the other circumstances would arise. The first appellate court rightly took the view that under Section 49 of the Act the sale deed could be received in evidence to prove the agreement between the parties though it may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property.....”

6. On a perusal of the record and as seen from the impugned docket order, this Court observed that, an Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed for examining the 1st defendant at his residence at Kadvakuduru. Further, the said Advocate Commissioner has filed one Memo on 05.09.2019 stating that the defendant counsel sought to mark two sthirasthi swadheena Agreements, dated 13.4.1993 and 5.8.1995 which are unregistered, but impounded in due course of law, for which, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff strongly objected and stated that those documents can be only marked in suits for specific performance and not in any other suit citing Section 49 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1908. It is further observed that, in the Court below, the contention of the A