ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders dated 26.12.2019 in IA No.617 of 2019 in IA No.1194 of 2018 in on the file of the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. This application in IA No.617 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to send the original unregistered agreement of sale deed dated 24.08.2001 executed by defendant No.1, late Sri Abdul Rasheed, the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 to 6 in favour of plaintiff, to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad, for impounding the same by paying the required stamp duty and penalty. 3. This application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the trial Court directing the office to transmit the said agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad for impounding with required stamp duty and penalty. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the defendant No.1 has filed this civil revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant and the respondents. Perused the material available on record. Detailed submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit. 6. The plaintiff has filed original suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 against the defendants. The defendant No.1 has filed the written statement. Subsequent to the filing of written statement, it appears the defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives - wife and children, who are the defendants 2 to 6, are brought on record. 7. It is pertinent to note that the defendants failed to resist this application filed in IA No.617 of 2019 before trial Court, whereby the trial Court has specifically mentioned in the order impugned that the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has reported no counter. 7. It is pertinent to note that the defendants failed to resist this application filed in IA No.617 of 2019 before trial Court, whereby the trial Court has specifically mentioned in the order impugned that the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has reported no counter. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the present case, since the original suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 and the written statement was filed long back and the suit is being adjourned for trial, the trial Court has directed the office to send the agreement of sale dated 24.08.2001 to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad for impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty. 8. The defendants having failed to resist the matter before the trial Court, when the order impugned was passed, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alleging that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and the order impugned is not sustainable and it is contrary to the settled principles of law that mere payment of stamp duty will not cure the defect under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant strenuously contends that the trial Court has erred in sending the document to the District Registrar for impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty and mere payment of stamp duty and penalty will not cure the defect under Section 17of Registration Act and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions : (i) B. Bal Reddy v. B. Ram Reddy and others, [2015 (12) LAWS (APH) 43 = 2016 (2) ALD 435 ]; and (ii) Decision of this Court in CRP No.7021 of 2018, dated 19.06.2019. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions. (i) In B. Bal Reddy’s case (1st supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that in a suit for perpetual injunction, a “consent declaration” executed between the parties and that the document was referred to the District Registrar for impounding. In that context, it was held by this Court that when the admissibility of the document is challenged, the trial Court is not supposed to postpone the decision on the issue of admissibility. In that context, it was held by this Court that when the admissibility of the document is challenged, the trial Court is not supposed to postpone the decision on the issue of admissibility. (ii) In CRP No.7021 of 2018, a learned single Judge of this Court in a suit for perpetual injunction a document was proposed to be marked with regard to an agreement of sale, which requires compulsory registration. The document dated 06.10.2016 was in the form of declaration wherein the word ‘disowned’ is used, which amounts to relinquishment rights. Therefore, it was held that such document should be de-exhibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff is submitted a detailed written arguments and argued that there is no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order impugned. The trial Court has rightly referred the document to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), for impounding with required stamp duty and penalty and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions : (i) Attirala Chinnamma and another v. Gummadi Ravindraiah, 2009 (2) ALT 143 ; (ii) U. Madan Gopal v. M. Sudhakar, 2010 (4) ALD 481 ; (iii) A. Rama Rao and others v. Raghunath Patnaik and others, AIR 2002 Orissa 77; (iv) Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha, AIR 2009 SC 355 ; and (v) Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and another, 2001 (2) ALD 114 (SC). 12. I have carefully perused the principles laid in the above decisions. The law is well settled that if the Court finds the document to be insufficiently stamped, it can call upon the party to make good the deficit and pay penalty not exceeding ten times. Here in the instant case, at the request of the party, the document was referred to the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad, for impounding with required stamp duty and penalty and the suit based on the unregistered agreement of sale is maintainable. Merely because the document is unregistered it does not conclusively extinct the right of the parties and the document can be received in evidence, even for collateral purpose. 13. Whereas, the facts of the present case are quite distinct. Merely because the document is unregistered it does not conclusively extinct the right of the parties and the document can be received in evidence, even for collateral purpose. 13. Whereas, the facts of the present case are quite distinct. Here in the instant case, the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale and the revision petitioner/first defendant did not resist the application before the trial Court and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendants 2 to 6 reported as no counter. Consequently, the learned trial Judge has ordered the application directing the District Registrar, Erragadda (South), Hyderabad for impounding the said agreement of sale with required stamp duty and penalty. 14. In that view of the matter, in view of the fact that the defendants failed to resist this application before the trial Court and reported no counter and now filed this civil revision petition without any merits, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the revision petitioner/ defendant No.1. Therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court and it is sustained. However, the revision petitioner/defendant is at liberty to raise all such objections that are raised here during trial at the time of exhibiting of the documents. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 26.12.2019 in IA No.617 of 2019 in OS No.1194 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.