ORDER : The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, has filed the suit against the respondent and others for partition. The said suit of the plaintiff is being stoutly resisted by the defendants on various grounds. 2. It is found that at one stage of the matter, the respondent/first defendant preferred an application, under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for the leave of the Court for the reception of the documents filed along with the application in I.A.No.184 of 2016. Inter alia, by way of the above said application, it is seen that the respondent/first defendant sought for the reception of the unregistered sale agreement and sale deeds. The said application of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the unregistered sale agreement and sale deeds could not be admitted in evidence as per law as they are not registered in accordance with law and therefore, sought for the dismissal of the application as against the above said documents. 3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, entertained the application preferred by the respondent. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the respondent is attempting to mark the unregistered sale agreement and sale deeds by way of the above said application, which cannot be done as per law, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below has erred in entertaining the application preferred by the respondent. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the above said application has been preferred only for the purpose of the reception of the documents enclosed along with the application and in such view of the matter, the Court below had rightly entertained the application and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner as such for the reception of the documents by the Court below cannot be sustained. 6. 6. Further, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents filed by the respondent along with the above said application have since come to be marked by the Court below in the matter subject to the objections put forth by the petitioner and therefore, according to him, the present application as such has become infructuous and if at all the petitioner has any grievance in the marking the above said documents subject to his objections, it is for the petitioner to take necessary legal redressal available to him under law and he cannot complain about the reception of the documents as such by way of this revision. 7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Court below had since marked the controversial documents in question subject to the objections put forth by the petitioner has not been controverted by the petitioner. It could therefore be seen that the documents in question had been marked in the suit no doubt subject to the objections put forth by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, when it is found that the documents in question had already been marked by the Court and when it is not very clear as to on what basis the Court below had admitted the marking of the said documents and further, when it is also not clear as to what are the specific objections put forth by the petitioner as to the marking of the said documents and when it is also not clear as to whether the said documents had come to be marked for any collateral transaction / purpose as envisaged under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, it is found that at present in this civil revision petition we cannot determine as to the validity of the marking of the documents in question by the Court below pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No.184 of 2016. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the Court below in marking the documents in question despite the objections put forth by him and also subject to the objections put forth by him, it is for the petitioner to seek for necessary legal redressal in the manner known to law. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the Court below in marking the documents in question despite the objections put forth by him and also subject to the objections put forth by him, it is for the petitioner to seek for necessary legal redressal in the manner known to law. In such view of the matter, it is found that the present civil revision petition, in my considered opinion, has become infructuous as such and the petitioner is advised to take necessary steps as may be available to him under law, if he is really aggrieved by the marking of the documents in question by the Court below subject to his objections. 8. In the light of the above position, it is found that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2016-2-L.W.329 [E.Meganathan & another vs. M.Samraj] as such is not found to be applicable to the case at hand, because in this civil revision petition, the challenge is not made to the marking of the documents by the Court below subject to the objections put forth by the petitioner, on the other hand, the challenge in this civil revision petition is made purely to the reception of the documents by the Court below under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) C.P.C. When it is found that after the reception of the documents as such, the Court below thereafter had marked the documents in question subject to the objections put forth by the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the act of the Court below in marking the documents as above mentioned cannot be decided in this civil revision petition. 9. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present civil revision petition being filed by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, according to him, this Court has got vast power to decide the validity of the marking of the documents by the Court below subject to the objections of the petitioner. 9. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present civil revision petition being filed by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, according to him, this Court has got vast power to decide the validity of the marking of the documents by the Court below subject to the objections of the petitioner. Yet, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, when the petitioner has got the other legal remedy available to him as per law with reference to the above decision of the Court in the marking the documents in question subject to the objections raised by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has to exhaust the said remedy, if he so chooses and the law permits him to do so and in such view of the matter, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the order of the Court below in the marking of the documents in dispute, in this civil revision petition. 10. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.