ORDER :

The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner before this Court, is challenging the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Trichy in I.A.No.159 of 2017 in O.S.No.199 of 2014.

2. I.A.No.159 of 2017 was filed by the defendant to take up the issue as to whether an unregistered agreement of sale could be marked as evidence as a preliminary issue. After considering the application, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Trichy has come to the conclusion that the agreement of sale dated 10.09.2013 was sought to be marked to establish the primary purpose and therefore, it cannot be received in evidence.

3. Though the issue for consideration before this Court is purely a legal issue, there is a necessity to briefly touch upon the facts that have ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned order.

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

4. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, had filed a suit O.S.No.199 of 2014 for specific performance on the file of the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Trichy. It is her case that on 10.09.2013, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with her to sell the suit schedule properties for a total sum of Rs.22,00,000/- an