Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 13.04.2007 passed by learned trial Court, partly allowing the defendants' application dt. 22.02.2007 with respect to Exhibits 3 and 4 in a suit for possession filed by the petitioner -plaintiff, Magni Ram, were produced by him, which was agreement to sell and a sale deed, which was neither registered nor stamp duty was paid on the same. The defendants raised an objection about the admissibility of these documents in evidence. The learned trial Court while partly allowing the said application directed that subject to payment stamp duty and penalty with respect to Exhibit - - 4, sale -deed, which the plaintiff -petitioner agreed to pay, that would be admissible in the evidence. However, so far as the Exhibit -3, agreement to sell is concerned, the trial Court has said that the same cannot be admitted in the evidence since the same was neither stamped nor the original of the same was produced by the plaintiff for compensation by the learned trial Court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Shrimali, submitted that the Exhibit -3 (Agreement to sell), document should be admitted in the evidence at least for collateral purposes in the present suit for possession and, which is not for specific performance of the agreement. Section 49 proviso of the Registration Act, provides that such documents may be admitted in the evidence only for collateral purpose, however, this interim order passed by the learned trial Court otherwise does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned trial Court forthwith.;