Telangana High Court
Nemarugommula Venkateshwar Rao vs Lode Venkateshwarlu on 28 July, 2023
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.381 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2022 in not deciding the objection regarding the admissibility of an un-registered document marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.59 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet District.
2. The respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, injunction and declaration of registered family settlement deed No.3967 of 2008 as null and void and not binding on him.
3. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed a document dated 21.04.1976 stating that the defendant No.2 executed a sada sale deed on 21.04.1976 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants objected marking of the said document as it was an unstamped and unregistered document. The stamp duty was collected on 13.02.2009 as per the attested copy of 13-B (as noted by the trial court while marking the same as Ex.A1). With regard to the objection taken by the defendants that it was an un-registered document, the trial court marked the same stating that the said objection would be decided at appropriate stage and effect of non-registration would follow. 2
Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023
4. Aggrieved for not deciding their objection then and there with regard to marking the said unregistered document, the defendants preferred this revision.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction with further relief of declaration of registered settlement deed as null and void on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. The trial court had not appreciated that on the basis of an unregistered document, no title would pass and the suit based on such unregistered document was devoid of merit and if the said objection was considered then and there, it would have shortened the litigation and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs. v. Bajrang Lal and Others1, and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ahmed Abdul Raheem and others v. Mohd. Abdul Aziz and another2, Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah (Died) per LRs. and others v. Ch.Sridhar Reddy and another3 , Vengalapudi Manga v. Paluri Kannabbai and others4 and of the Common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Bal Reddy v. B. Ram Reddy and others5. 1 (1978) 3 SCC 236 2 2012 (2) ALD 208 3 2013 (1) ALT 461 4 2013 (4) ALT 710 5 2016 (2) ALD 435 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023
7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the unregistered document could also be considered for collateral purpose, the validity of the document and whether it was hit by any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act could be adjudicated at an appropriate stage and the objections need not be decided by the trial court then and there itself and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another6, Bondar Singh and Others v. Nihal Singh and Others7, S.Kaladevi v. V.R.Somasundaram and Others8 and in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others9 and of the High Court of Telangana in Kamala Devi and Others v. Y.Anthi Reddy and Others10.
8. Perused the record.
9. The record would disclose that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, injunction and declaration of registered family settlement deed No.3967 of 2008 as null and void and not binding on him. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1, a simple sale deed, which was an unregistered and unstamped document. Stamp duty was collected as per the orders of the trial court on 13.02.2009. The trial court marked the said 6 (2001) 3 SCC 1 7 (2003) 4 SCC 161 8 (2010) 5 SCC 401 9 (2018) 7 SCC 639 10 (2019) 5 ALD 314 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 document by recording the objection taken by the defendants, that the objection with regard to non-registration would be decided at appropriate stage and that the effect of non-registration would follow.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants was that the objection raised by the defendants about the admissibility of the document tendered in evidence by the plaintiff had to be decided then and there itself and it could not be postponed by the trial court to a later stage and relied upon the above judgments.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs. v. Bajrang Lal and Others (cited supra), held that:
"....6. When the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection having been raised by the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and for want of registration, it was obligatory upon the learned trial judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and decide the objection in accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This, however, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would none-the-less be obligatory upon the court to decide the objection. If after applying mind to the rival contentions the trial court admits a document in evidence, Section 36 of the Stamp Act would come into play and such 5 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The Court, and of necessity it would be trial Court before which the objection is taken about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case and where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the Court applying its mind as to the question of admissibility, the instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting Section 36 (see Javar Chand v. Pukhraj Surana [AIR 1961 SC 1655]. The, endorsement made by the learned trial judge that "objected, allowed subject to objections" clearly indicates that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted.
7. Undoubtedly, if a person having by law authority to receive evidence and the civil court is one such person before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced and it is found that such instrument is not duly stamped, the same has to be impounded. The duty and penalty has to be recovered according to law. Section, 35, however, prohibits its admission in evidence till such duty and penalty is paid. The plaintiff has neither paid the duty nor penalty till today. Therefore, stricto sensu the instrument is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Desai, however, wanted us to refer the instrument to the authority competent to adjudicate the requisite stamp duty payable on the instrument and then recover the duty and penalty which the party who tenders the instrument in evidence is in any event bound to pay and, therefore, on this account it was said that the document should not be excluded from evidence. The duty and the penalty has to be paid when the document is tendered in evidence and an objection is raised. The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that the learned trial judge declined to decide the objection on merits and then sought refuge under Section 36. The plaintiff was, therefore, unable to pay the deficit 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 duty and penalty which when paid subject to all just exceptions, the document has, to be admitted in evidence. In this background while holding that the document Ext. 1 would be inadmissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped, we would not decline to take it into consideration because the trial Court is bound to impound the document and deal with it according to law."
12. The High court of Andhra Pradesh in Ahmed Abdul Raheem and others v. Mohd.Abdul Aziz and another (cited supra), wherein also an agreement of sale was sought to be marked as Ex.A1 and the defendants raised an objection with regard to marking the said document on the admissibility of the same and insisted to record their objection under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and to pass a judicial order on merits and the trial court dismissed the I.A. filed by the defendants and aggrieved by it, a revision petition was preferred by the defendants, held that:
"....8. The order passed by the learned trial Court apparently reveals that it is passed without application of mind to the objection raised about the admissibility of the document and it cannot be said that the trial Court judicially determined the admissibility of the suit document. It may be true that the learned trial Court by mere marking the suit document as Ex. A.1 is not precluded from pronouncing upon the admissibility of the document at any time before the suit is finally disposed of. But the crucial issue to be determined is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the revision petitioners/defendants have been constantly raising the objection as to the admissibility of the suit document whether the trial Court is justified in refraining from exercising its jurisdiction as to make a judicial decision on the admissibility of the suit document. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 relied on a decision reported in Ram Rattan (Dead) By Legal Representatives v Bajrang Lal and Others [AIR 1978 SC 1393] wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with identical situation held as follows:
"When the document is tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box and objection is raised by the defendants that the document is inadmissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped or for want of registration, it is obligatory upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law.
Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This, however, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would none-the-less be obligatory upon the Court to decide the objection.
The endorsement made by the trial Judge that 'objected, allowed subject to objection', clearly indicate that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted.
9. From the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above cited what all can be understood is that though the trial Court is empowered to pass a judicial order in respect of 8 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 the admissibility of the suit document at any time before the suit is finally disposed of. When once an objection is raised by the defendants as to the admissibility of the document after it is tendered for marking in the course of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial Court is under a duty to judicially decide and dispose of the objection raised by the defendant as to the admissibility of the document. In the instant case, the trial Court without straight away disposing of the objection raised by the revision petitioners/defendants as to the admissibility of the agreement to sell dated 09.10.2001 basing on which the suit is filed has been postponing to decide the issue in definitely and was bent upon lacking further steps to proceed with the trial without making decision on the crucial issue as to the admissibility of the suit document. The course adopted by the learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is nothing but refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to decide on the admissibility of the suit document. The course adopted by the learned trial Court by postponing to make a decision on the admissibility of the document is illegal and requires interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
13. The High Court of A.P. in Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah (Died) per LRs. and others v. Ch.Sridhar Reddy and another (cited supra), held that:
"....4. The suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The document sought to be filed is an unregistered sale deed. It is not in dispute that a sale deed in respect of immovable property is required to be registered, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of non-registration of documents, which are required to be registered. It mandates that such unregistered document cannot be received in evidence. Its proviso carved out an exception to the effect that such documents can be received in evidence, for collateral purposes.
5. The purpose can be said to be collateral, when it is other than the one, which the document 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 purports to deal with. If the document is an unregistered sale deed, any purpose other than the one which relates to establishment of title to the property can be treated as collateral. In a suit for declaration of title, to an item of immovable property, an unregistered sale deed, in relation thereto, cannot be received in evidence, even for collateral purposes. The party, who intends to rely upon it, cannot plead that he would use it only for other purposes."
14. The High Court of A.P. in Vengalapudi Manga v. Paluri Kannabbai and others (cited supra) also held that:
"....8. In the present case, the specific case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. He claims title to the said property under a sale deed, dated 11.04.1973 executed by the defendants 3 & 4 along with their father and also the son of the 3rd defendant in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and thereafter under a registered gift settlement deed, dated 26.8.2004 executed by the plaintiff's mother and father in favour of the plaintiff, he acquired absolute title and possession over the said property. Alleging that the defendants 3 & 4 executed a sham and nominal sale deed dated 28.3.2007 in favour of the defendants 1 & 2 in respect of the very same property covered by the sale deed dated 11.04.1973, he filed the suit for declaration of his title.
9. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff intends to rely upon the document in question to prove his title to the suit schedule property, but not for any other purpose. Therefore, the contention that the document can be looked into for collateral purpose is without substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the question of looking into the said document as evidence of any collateral transaction does not arise at all."10
Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023
15. In B.Bal Reddy v. B.Ram Reddy and others (cited supra), the combined High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, held that:
"6. In the instant case, the suit is filed for permanent injunction. The issue requires to be considered by the trial court in a suit for permanent injunction is as to who is in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit. Incidentally, the trial court has to look into the title of the parties in-relation to the suit property. Therefore the respondents in the present case, sought to let in evidence by marking the said document for the principal purpose and not for collateral purpose, and the same cannot be received in evidence for want of registration. The trial court therefore committed manifest error in sending the document to the District Registrar for impounding. Moreover, when the admissibility of the document is challenged, the trial court is not supposed to postpone the decision on the issue of admissibility. It has to examine the document and pronounce its opinion upon the admissibility of the document before marking the same. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court that the admissibility and probative value of the document can be decided at the time of trial is totally erroneous. This court is therefore of the considered view that the document cannot be let in evidence as it is an unregistered sale deed relied upon by the respondents for the main purpose of proving their possession and title."
16. Thus, basing on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs. v. Bajrang Lal and Others (cited supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the combined High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, in all the above cases held that the trial court had to then and there decide the issue with regard to the admissibility of the document and that an 11 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 unregistered sale deed could not be looked into even for any collateral transaction.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another (cited supra), wherein the 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"....13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this:
Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or revisional court, when the same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realized through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.
14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such 12 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course.
(However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)
15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses."
18. In Bondar Singh and Others v. Nihal Singh and Others (cited supra) also, the 2-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an unregistered sale deed could be considered for collateral purpose to see the nature of possession over the suit land by the parties and held as follows:
"....5. The main question as we have already noted is the question of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the 13 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor interest of the plaintiff, is an admitted document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The only defence set up against said document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot convey title to the land in favour of plaintiffs. Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land."
19. In S.Kaladevi v. V.R.Somasundaram and Others (cited supra), the 2- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an unregistered sale deed could be admitted in evidence in a suit for specific performance and observed as follows:
"....16. The issue before us is only with regard to the admissibility of unregistered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 in evidence and, therefore, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for us to consider the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of suit as framed by the plaintiff or the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed. If any issue in that regard has been struck by the trial court, obviously, such issue would be decided in accordance with law. Suffice, however, to say that looking to the nature of the suit, which happens to be a suit for specific performance, the trial court was not justified in refusing to admit the unregistered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 tendered by the plaintiff in evidence."
20. In Ameer Minhaj v. Diedre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others (cited supra), the 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: 14
Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 "....13. The principal document, namely, the agreement to sell dated 12-11-1995, as rightly noticed by the Courts below, was executed prior to coming into force of Section 17(1-A) of the 1908 Act. That provision has been made applicable prospectively. Hence, the same was not required to be compulsorily registered at the time of its execution. Even if it was required to be registered, keeping in view the purport of Section 49 read with Section 17(1-A) of the 1908 Act, the same could be received as evidence for a limited purpose, without having any effect for the purposes of Section 53-A of 1882 Act.
14. As a result, the Trial Court was right in overturning the objection regarding marking and exhibiting these documents as urged by respondent Nos.1 & 2 (defendant Nos.3 & 4), while making it clear that the question regarding the genuineness, validity and binding nature of the documents, including as to whether it is hit by the provisions of 1882 Act or the 1899 Act, as the case may be, would be decided at the appropriate stage."
21. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Kamala Devi and Others v. Y.Anthi Reddy and others (cited supra), in detail considered the effect of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act while marking an unregistered sale deed and held that:
"....15. In Bondar Singh [(2003) 4 SCC 161], in a suit for declaration of title on the basis of the plea that plaintiffs have become the owners of suit schedule property by adverse possession, an unregistered sale deed dt.09-05-1931, was sought to be marked in evidence. The said document was admitted into evidence and the suit was decreed. This judgment of the trial Court and the subsequent judgment of the High Court were confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a document like a 15 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into as collateral purpose and in the said case, collateral purpose is nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and it shows the initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal and not unauthorized.
16. These decisions were followed in K.Ramamoorthi [(2012 (6) ALD 163], by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who observed :
"24. On a compendious reference of the case law discussed above, the followings conclusions emerge:
i) A document, which is compulsorily registrable, but not registered, cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. The phrase "affecting the immovable property" needs to be understood in the light of the provisions of Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, which would mean that any instrument which creates, declares, assigns, limits or extinguishes a right to immovable property, affects the immovable property.
ii) The restriction imposed under Section 49 of the Registration Act is confined to the use of the document to affect the immovable property and to use the document as evidence of a transaction affecting the immovable property.
iii) If the object in putting the document in evidence does not fall within the two purposes mentioned in (ii) supra, the document cannot be excluded from evidence altogether.16
Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023
iv) A collateral transaction must be independent of or divisible from a transaction to affect the property i.e., a transaction creating any right, title or interest in the immovable property of the value of rupees hundred and upwards.
v) The phrase "collateral purpose" is with reference to the transaction and not to the relief claimed in the suit.
vi) The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act does not speak of collateral purpose but of collateral transaction i.e., one collateral to the transaction affecting immovable property by reason of which registration is necessary, rather than one collateral to the document.
vii) Whether a transaction is collateral or not needs to be decided on the nature, purpose and recitals of the document.
25. Having culled out the legal propositions, the discussion on this issue will be incomplete if a few illustrations as to what constitutes collateral transaction are not enumerated as given out in Radhomal Alumal (AIR (29) 1942 Sind 27) and other Judgments. They are as under:
a) If a lessor sues his lessee for rent on an unregistered lease which has expired at the date of the suit, he cannot succeed for two reasons, namely, that the lease which is registrable is unregistered and that the period of lease has expired on the date of filing of the suit. However, such a lease deed can be relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit for possession filed after expiry of 17 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 the lease to prove the nature of the defendant's possession.
b) An unregistered mortgage deed requiring registration may be received as evidence to prove the money debt, provided, the mortgage deed contains a personal covenant by the mortgagor to pay (See: Queen-
Empress v Rama Tevan ('92) 15 Mad. 253, P.V. M.Kunhu Moidu v T. Madhava Menon('09) 32 Mad. 410 and Vani v Bani ('96) 20 Bom. 553).
c) In an unregistered agreement dealing with the right to share in certain lands and also to a share in a cash allowance, the party is entitled to sue on the document in respect of movable property (Hanmantapparao v Ramabai Hanmant('19) 6 AIR 1919 Bom.
38 = 21 Bom. L.R.716).
d) An unregistered deed of gift requiring registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act is admissible in evidence not to prove the gift, but to explain by reference to it the character of the possession of the person who held the land and who claimed it, not by virtue of deed of gift but by setting up the plea of adverse possession [Varada Pillai (43 Madras 244 (PC)].
(e) A sale deed of immovable property requiring registration but not registered can be used to show nature of possession (Radhomal Alumal AIR (29) 1942 Sind 27), Bondar Singh (3 supra) and A. Kishore (2004 (3) ALD 817 (DB).
The above instances are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
There may be many more 18 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 situations where a transaction can be collateral to the transaction which affects the immovable property. The Courts will have to carefully decide on a case to case basis in the light of the legal principles contained in the above discussed and various other judgments holding the field."
(emphasis supplied)
17. This Court then categorically held that an unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of plaintiff and that in a document of sale, possession is treated as collateral to the main transaction affecting the immovable property.
18. Having regard to the above decision and the decision of the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh [(2003) 4 SCC 161], the view expressed by Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah [2013 (1) ALT 461] that an unregistered sale deed cannot be received in evidence in a suit for declaration of title even for collateral purpose under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not good law.
22. As such from the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which were binding on this Court, the objections with regard to the admissibility of a document need not be decided by the trial court then and there and it can be decided at an appropriate stage by the trial court and the unregistered sale deed can also be considered for collateral purpose to prove the nature of possession.
23. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial court in tentatively marking the document as Ex.A1 subject to 19 Dr.GRR, J crp_381_2023 deciding the objection at an appropriate stage. The trial court also cautioned that the effect of non-registration would follow.
24. As such, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial court to set aside the same.
25. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial at the earliest and to decide the objections with regard to non-registration of the document at the appropriate stage. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 28th July, 2023 Nsk.