ORDER This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order, dated 27-06-2008, passed in I.A. No. 93 of 2008 in O.S. No. 67 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the aforesaid suit against petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 6, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. When the suit was coming up for defendant's evidence, the present I.A. has been filed by the defendants, stating that through an agreement of sale dated 13-04-1988, the 151 defendant has got purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and that the said document is required to be impounded by the competent authority for collecting required stamp duty and penalty, and therefore they requested to send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, for impounding. The 151 respondent/plaintiff resisted the petition by filing a counter, wherein it is stated that the defendants want to send a photocopy of the document for impounding, but not the original document, and the same cannot. be permitted, and that only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the present petition has been filed after ten years of institution of the suit. The Court below, while observing that the document, which is required to be sent for impounding, is a photocopy and the original document is not produced before the Court, relied upon the decisions of this Court, wherein it is held that photocopy of a document is not an instrument and cannot be impounded and assessed to stamp duty and even if such document is impounded by competent authority under Stamp Act, it need not necessarily be understood as legally got validated for the purpose of admissibility of the same in evidence, and dismissed the petition, by the impugned order dated 27-06-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in fact the petitioners/ defendants have filed I.A. No. 233 of 2005 before the Court below, seeking to receive the said photocopy of the document dated 13-04-1988 as secondary evidence, and the same was allowed on 04-05-2005, and pursuant thereto the present I.A. has been filed seeking to get the document in question impounded. He further contends that the Court below, without considering the fact that unless the said document is impounded no purpose would be served in receiving the same as secondary evidence, has erroneously rejected to send the said document for impounding. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff reiterated the stand taken by the 1st respondent/plaintiff before the Court below and supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. 6. Admittedly, the document, which is required to be sent for impounding, is a photocopy of the document and the original has not been produced before the Court below. Therefore, the same cannot be an instrument, which can be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. May be, the Court below has agreed to receive the said document as secondary evidence, but that does not mean that the same can be impounded. The Court below has rightly taken note of this fact and considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the petition by the impugned order. I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Court below, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, so far as marking the document in question as secondary evidence is concerned, it is open for the Court below to decide the said aspect on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs.