JUDGMENT This revision has been preferred against an order dated 22.4.92 passed by III Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Morena. A short point involved in the case is that certified copy of a registered sale deed was filed by the non-applicants in the Court. The Court accepted that document in evidence and rejected the objection raised by the petitioner against which the present revision has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration of their title and for setting aside the sale deed executed by their father Shivnarayan in favour of the petitioners Vasudev and Kshatrapal alleging that the sale deed is void. Defence was that the sale deed was valid and was executed for legal necessity. The suit was decreed that the sale deed was valid for 1/3 rd share of Shivnarayan but invalid of 2/3rd share of the plaintiff. Two appeals were filed against that order in the High Court numbering 25/84 and 46/87. Both the appeals were decided by a common order and the case was remanded to the trial Court for further evidence and decision. It is at this stage, the certified copies of two other sale deeds were filed by the plaintiff. An application u/O. XIII Rule 2 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff for production of the document which was allowed and consequently certified copies of the sale deeds were accepted. The revisionists filed an objection that the certified copies of the sale deeds were not admissible in evidence because the said sale deeds were not public documents. This objection was rejected by the Court against which the present revision has been filed. From what has been said above, it is clear that the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs/non-applicants, were not their basis of suit or title. They were filed for some collateral purposes. It is also not disputed that the sale deeds were registered documents and certified copies thereof were filed. In AIR 1979 Gauhati, 14 it was held that:- "A sale deed is a private document, but the record of the sale deed kept in the office of the Sub-Registrar is a public record of that private document and hence it falls within the category of 'Public document. Therefore, to prove the document, certified copy of the deed is admissible. In AIR 1979 Gauhati, 14 it was held that:- "A sale deed is a private document, but the record of the sale deed kept in the office of the Sub-Registrar is a public record of that private document and hence it falls within the category of 'Public document. Therefore, to prove the document, certified copy of the deed is admissible. That apart when it is admitted without objection Court cannot go behi1d that order." I have already said earlier that the said two sale deeds were not the basis of title or the basis of suit filed by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs did not derive their title through those sale deeds. The result is that the lower Court did not commit any mistake in overruling the objection raised by the revisionists. If the documents were not the basis of suit or the basis of title to which the plaintiffs relied then certainly certified copies of any sale deed could be used only for collateral purposes and it did not require that strict proof and the documents were not private documents. I find no error committed by the trial Court. The revision has no force. It is rejected. Let the record be sent back to the Court concerned for further proceedings according to law. AIR 1979 Gauhati 14 relied on.