1. This writ petition has been preferred by plaintiff assailing the order dated 16.2.2012, whereby the Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City has declined to accept the sale deed dated 15.7.1992 produced by the petitioner in his suit on the premise that the same is un-registered and unstamped and, therefore, not admissible. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed asserting that he purchased plot nos.54, 61, 38 and 76 from Shafi Mohammed, Rais Mohammed, Zamila and Gafoor Mohammed for sale consideration of Rs.15,000 and was simultaneously put in possession of the plots. The defendants-Babu Lal and Pramod Kumar were trying to forcibly dispossess him and take possession of the land of the aforesaid plots so as to start construction thereupon. The defendants contested the suit denying the allegations. The learned trial court framed five Issues. The plaintiff during trial submitted in support of his case filed his affidavit in evidence. When the plaintiff wanted to exhibit the aforesaid sale deed in evidence, objection was raised on behalf of the defendants and the trial court by the impugned order has sustained the objection. Hence this writ petition.

2. Shri Kesav Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that trial court was wholly unjustified in holding the document to be not admissible in evidence. The question as to the admissibility of the document can be decided only at the time of final hearing of the case. The document cannot be refused to be exhibited for the reason that the document in question was unregistered sale deed dated 15.7.1992. Petitioner wanted to produce the same for the collateral purpose in order to prove nature of his possession as disclosed in the plaint. Even if the document is allowed to be exhibited, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.-(2001) 3 SCC 1, LIC of India & Anr. vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen-2010 (2) Supreme 444, Smt. Ratan Sharma vs. The New India Insurance-2001 WLC (Raj) UC page 343, Jai Narain vs. District Judge & Ors.-2003 (3) CDR 2050 (Raj.) and judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra & Anr. vs. Moti Chand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1879/1997 decided on 3.12.1997.

3. Per contra, Shri Raj Kamal Gaur, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents has supported the impugned order. He has argued that the document in question is described to be a sale deed, whereas no deed with regard to transfer of title, sale of land and transfer of title, which is not registered and not stamped, can be exhibited in evidence. The document is the sole premise of the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, therefore, this cannot be accepted that this document is being merely produced for collateral purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the trial court has rightly analysed the law, especially with reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Indu (Smt.) vs. Narsingh Das & Ors.-2009 DNJ (SC) page 364. It is argued that purpose for which the unregistered sale deed is sought to be produced in evidence cannot in the facts of the present case, be said to collateral purpose. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Development Consultant Ltd.-CLJ 2008 (4) page 392, the judgment of Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra-2009 (3) CT (SC), Smt. Jamna Bai vs. Tulsi Ram-AIR 1997 Rajasthan 85 and Indu (Smt.) vs. Narsingh Das & Ors.-2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1705.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and the material on record.

6. The question of admissibility of document has of course to be decided in the present case, but on this aspect two fold