Judgment : 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 4-1-2013, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Gubbi, in O.S. No. 149 of 2003 vide Annexure-D. 2. By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the Trial Court has permitted the respondent to mark unregistered Panchayathi Palparikath ya Kararu Patra dated 21-9-1982. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 149 of 2003 for permanent injunction. The trial has commenced. In the course of evidence, the respondent has produced unregistered Panchayathi Palparikath ya Kararu Patra dated 21-9-1982. The petitioner has objected for marking of the document on the ground that the documents is unregistered and it is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court has permitted the respondent to mark the document holding that under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document can be received for collateral purpose i.e., to show possession. Therefore, this writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has erred in permitting the respondent to mark the document. He also submitted that the respondent is in no way connected with the family and he is not entitled for any share in the family properties and therefore, the document dated 21-9-1982 is a concocted document. The respondent has no pre-existing right in the property and therefore, the document cannot be marked in evidence. The Trial Court has erred in permitting the respondent to mark the document. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court has received the document for collateral purpose and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. I find some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The fact that the respondent has nothing to do with the family and there could not have been a partition can be considered while considering the matter on merits. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. I find some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The fact that the respondent has nothing to do with the family and there could not have been a partition can be considered while considering the matter on merits. The Trial Court has observed that the document can be received for collateral purpose. Whether the document is a valid document, it is admissible in evidence and requires registration and can be used for collateral purpose can be considered at the time of considering the matter on merits. At this stage, the impugned order need not be interfered with. The grounds urged by the petitioner regarding validity, admissibility, whether it requires registered and can be used for collateral purpose can be considered while considering the matter on merits. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all grounds regarding validity, admissibility, whether the document requires registration and can be used for collateral purpose. The document is permitted to be marked subject to all contentions regarding validity, admissibility etc. The Trial Court shall consider the matter on merits without being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order.