Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 30th July, 2011, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kota dismissed the application of the defendants-petitioners dated 14th October, 2010, wherein he had implored the Court to delete the exhibits 3 and 13 marked on two documents.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent Abdul Majid against the defendant-petitioner Kanti and others. During the evidence of the plaintiff, many documents were filed and out of these documents, Ex. 3 and 13 were the agreement to sale, which were not duly registered under the provisions of Registration Act. Since the documents were not registered, hence they could not be admitted to evidence under the provisions of law. Learned trial court allowed the plaintiff to mark the exhibits on these two documents and despite there being a clear provision and having drawn the attention of the court, the learned trial court dismissed his application dated 14th October, 2010. The impugned order is bad in law, hence the same deserve to be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that if the documents are not tendered in the suit for specific performance of contract, then the proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act does not hold good and the document is required to be registered under Section 17 of Registration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 364; judgment of this Court in the case of Parmanand Setia vs. Somlal & Others reported in 2003(1) DNJ (Raj) 107; and Jagdish Prasad vs. Hanuman Das & Ors. reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1245.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents in contra contended that both the documents Ex. 3 and 13 had bee exhibited by the court way back in the year 2007 when the statement of PW-1 Abdul Majid was recorded. The petitioners-defendants filed the application three years after exhibiting these documents hence, the learned trial court rightly dismissed the application of the defendants-petitioners. This Court has also observed in one case of Laxmi Narayan Singhal vs. ADJ No. 9, Jaipur City reported in 2011(3) WLC (Raj.) page 428 = 2011(3) RLW 2696 that once the documents were exhibited by the Court and if their genuineness was challenged, that could be taken into consideration at the time of final decision of the case. He has cited the judgments of this Court delivered in the cases of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and Prem Kumar Dagar vs. Kailash Chandra Dagar reported in 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1022 in support thereof.

5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed from the statement of PW-1 Abdul Majid that 13 documents were exhibited on 27th August, 2007 when his statement was recorded. Thereafter on 14th October, 2010, the petitioners-defendants filed an application imploring the Court to delete exhibits marked on the said documents as they were not duly registered. Learned trial court dismissed the application.

6. It is relevant to record that this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) observed thus:

"Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the document Ex. 1 in question was tendered in evidence way back on 17th August, 2004. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was recorded and the evidence of the plaintiff was finally closed. At the stage, when defendant was subjected to cross-examination, the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC imploring the Court to hold that the document i.e. agreement to sell (Ex.1) was not admi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document