ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel on record for revision petitioners, and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel on record for the respondents. 3. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the suit. 4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for declaration that they are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the suit claim, issues were framed, trial commenced and the matter was posted for evidence of P.W-1 on 21.06.2019; that during the chief-examination of P.W-1, certain documents were sought to be marked which include unregistered sale deeds dated 23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and 09.06.1974; that defendant No.2 filed a memo dated 26.06.2019 raising objection with regard to marking of the said documents; that the trial Court considering the objection raised by defendant No.2 accorded permission to the plaintiffs to mark the documents subject to impounding the same with required stamp duty and penalty; and accordingly, the said documents were impounded with required stamp duty; and the trial Court ordered that the said documents be received in evidence for collateral purpose, with liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the witness with regard to admissibility and genuinity of the said documents. 5. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 filed Revision vide CRP.No.1758 of 2019 and this Court, on due consideration of the contentions raised by both the parties in the said CRP and also considering the legal position and referring to various judgments, has held that the order under revision therein is sustainable and does not warrant any interference and accordingly, disposed of the CRP, vide order dated 12.04.2022, granting liberty to defendant No.2 to raise all the pleas of admissibility and genuineness of unregistered sale deeds dated 23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and 09.06.1974 in the cross-examination of P.W-1. 6. 6. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that despite the said order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, the trial Court once again entertained the objection raised by defendant No.2 and passed the impugned docket order dated 14.08.2024 holding that the aforesaid unregistered sale deeds are not admissible in evidence. Hence, the present Revision Petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to para 13 of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, which reads as hereunder:- “Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, the order of the trial Court is sustained and it does not warrant any interference by this Court as the said document Nos.2 to 4-the unregistered sale deeds, are impounded with requisite stamp duty in accordance with the Stamp Act”. 7.1. By referring to aforesaid observation of this Court, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned docket order passed by the trial Court is contrary and not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019. He further submitted that the issue with regard to admissibility of the aforesaid unregistered sale deeds is adjudicated and settled by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, wherein this Court, after duly considering the objections and contentions raised by defendant No.2, has sustained the earlier impugned order of the trial Court directing that the unregistered sale deeds be marked for collateral purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that when the said documents were sought to be marked, once again defendant No.2 raised an objection for marking of the same by referring to para 14 of order passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, wherein this Court has observed that defendant No.2 is at liberty to raise all pleas as to the admissibility and genuineness of the documents in the cross-examination of P.W-1, which clearly infers that on marking of the said documents, defendant No.2 can cross-examine the witness on the aspect of admissibility and genuineness. However, the trial Court on erroneous interpretation of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019 has once again held that the documents are inadmissible in evidence, vide impugned docket order and hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow this Revision Petition. 8. However, the trial Court on erroneous interpretation of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019 has once again held that the documents are inadmissible in evidence, vide impugned docket order and hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow this Revision Petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that mere impounding of unregistered documents, does not make the said documents admissible in evidence and hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the unregistered sale deeds are inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming rights over the suit schedule property under the unregistered sale deeds and as such, the trial Court has rightly refused to mark the said documents and hence, the impugned docket order warrants no interference by this Court. 9. In considered opinion of this Court, when the issue with regard to marking of documents has already been settled by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024 passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, it is impermissible for the trial Court to once again examine the said issue and pass orders contrary to and in violation of the orders passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019. 10. The authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners are not gone into by this Court since the issue involved in the present Revision Petition is no more res integra in view of the orders passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019. 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed grave error in entertaining the objection raised by defendant No.2, which was subject matter of the earlier Revision Petition, vide CRP.No.1758 of 2019 and was already dealt with and decided by this Court. 12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The trial Court is directed to mark the aforesaid documents and proceed further with the matter. 14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.