ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.1999 made in I.A.No.706 of 1999 in O.S.No.101 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Manamadurai thereby dismissing the application filed under O.8, Rule 8(a)(2) and Sec.151, C.P.C. by the second defendant in the suit as the petitioner against the plaintiff. 2. The said application has been filed on averments such as that in the whole of the suit property, on 27.12.1967, a separate portion has been given under sale deed to his younger brother Danasekaran who is in possession and enjoyment of the same now; that thereafter, the petitioner and his brother having held a partition of the properties on 15.8.1978, they are in enjoyment of the suit property, a portion of which are in their possession right from 27.12.1967 onwards; that they have been producing the document of title deed dated 27.12.1976 for collateral purposes paying the stamp duty penalty to the extent of Rs.550 in order to show that in accordance with this document, a portion of the suit property had been in their possession right from the said date and hence praying to accept the same, the petitioner has come forward to file the above application before the trial Court. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent therein, it would be claimed that the allegation that the junior paternal uncle executed a sale deed dated 27.12.1967 in favour of Danasekaran is not legally valid and that it would show that the petitioner is in possession of the said property, and therefore coming forward to mark the same in evidence, is not acceptable as per the Indian Registration Act and would hence pray for dismissing the petition with costs. 4. Based on these pleadings, the Court below having framed proper point for consideration and determination of the short point involved in the application, and having had its own discussions, had ultimately dismissed the application, but without costs on ground that the said sale deed 27.12.1967 is not a registered document and the same had been not sought to be marked for collateral purpose alone as it has been held in the decision reported in Ranganatha Gounder v. Perumal Nattur, (1999)1 L.W. 656 . 5. 5. The trial Court would further see that only through this document dated 27.12.1967, the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he became entitled to the suit property and came to be in possession and enjoyment also. Therefore, since it is not only for collateral purposes, but also basically since the case of the petitioner/ second defendant being that it is the document based on which he became entitled to the very suit property and also came to be in possession of the same and as such, since the said document is not registered, that too being a sale deed and under the Registration Act, for such sale deeds, registration is compulsory and in spite of the petitioner having come forward to pay the difference of stamp duty at a later stage and to mark the document for collateral purposes, the lower Court would see no justification on the part of the petitioner/ second defendant and would ultimately dismiss the application, but without costs. 6. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, the short question that is to be answered in this civil revision petition is whether the document dated 27.12.1967, which is a sale deed and an unregistered document, in the circumstances of the case, could be allowed to be marked for collateral purposes as it is alleged on the part of the petitioner who is the second defendant in the suit? 7. So far as the lower Court is concerned, citing the judgment rendered in Ranganatha Gounder v. Perumal Nattur, (1999)1 L.W. 656 and adhering to the same wherein it is held that since for such documents, registration is compulsory and if it is not registered, it need not be allowed to be marked, it would dismiss the application filed on the part of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 8. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 8. Even during arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1158: (2001)3 S.C.C. 1 , wherein it is held as follows: “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. Such practices when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 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 objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (....) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.” The above proposition is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since it is not at the stage of recording evidence the petitioner had come forward to mark the document and it was objected to and rejected by the lower Court, but for other reasons assigned as aforementioned, since the recital of the document is one showing that it is a sale deed, without registering the same as warranted by the Registration Act, and therefore, not because at the stage of taking evidence the document has been projected, the lower Court objected to mark the same and therefore, this judgment does not apply to the facts of the case in any manner and the same is not adopted by this Court. 9. 9. The reasons assigned on the part of the Court below is appropriate and convincing; that in the circumstances of the facts of the case, no such document could be allowed to be marked, especially when the case of the petitioner that he acquired the title and came to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by means of the said document which is sought to be marked, i.e., the unregistered document dated 26.12.1967 and since it is the accepted case of the petitioner, simply coming forward to state that his document is to be made use of only for collateral purposes, the basic purpose to be served by this document is different, and therefore, the lower Court is right in rejecting the application. 10. No other legal infirmity or inconsistency is also found in the order passed by the Court below, and therefore, the interference of this Court that is sought to be made into the well considered and well merited order passed by the lower Court is not only unnecessary, but uncalled for as well. In result, the above civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The fair and decretal order dated 13.10.1999 made in I.A.No.706 of 1999 in O.S.No.101 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Manamadurai is hereby confirmed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.22277 of 1999 is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.