DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 17.10.2016, passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nava, District Nagour, whereby the agreement dated 25.3.1983 has been taken on record and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 49 of the Registration Act has been rejected.
(2.) Facts in brief, appertain to the present case are that the plaintiff Chiraguddin, the respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, seeking possession of the house and recovery of the arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff's application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed vide order dated 01.9.2016, whereby the agreement dated 25.3.1983 was taken on record by the Trial Court. After taking of the document on record, the petitioner-defendant moved an application dated 13.10.2016, interalia raising objection regarding its admissibility in light of provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, contending interalia, that the document in question is not admissible in evidence, sans registration.
(3.) Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application vide its order dated 17.10.2016 observing inter alia that the document in question, even without registration can be used for collateral purpose. While rejecting the application, the court below has also mentioned that the applicant has not stated as to what is the stamp duty payable and under what provisions of law, the contentious document is inadmissible for the reason of non payment of the duty.;