Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar, plaintiff-respondent/landlord had filed a suit before Rent Tribunal Baran, District Baran seeking eviction of petitioner-defendant/tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-tenant submitted his affidavit along with eight documents. The said documents were taken on record. On 27.8.2015, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application before the Rent Tribunal stating therein that the petitioner-tenant had only provided copies of five documents whereas, copies of three documents viz. Exhibit-A/4, Exhibit-A/7 and Exhibit-A/8 were not provided to the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The trial court had already exhibited the agreement to sell as Exhibit-3. In the application (Annexure-1) dated 27.8.2015, another objection was raised that agreement to sell has been assigned Exhibit-3 wrongly and same could not be done as the document was neither stamped nor registered. The trial court accepted the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent/landlord and relied upon various judgment to hold that since the document was not stamped and registered, same could not be assigned exhibit.

3. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A document produced by either of the party can either be unregistered document or registered but unstamped document or it can be both unregistered and unstamped document. Thus, three questions arise for the consideration of the court:

(a) What is the effect of unregistered document;

(b) What is the effect of document which is unstamped;

(c) If unstamped document is assigned exhibit by the court, whether in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act subsequently by passing separate order exhibit assigned can be removed, or order passed to this effect can be reviewed or recalled?

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and ors., (2010) 5 SCC 401, wherein the court held that the trial court was not justified in refusing to admit unregistered document.

7. A perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of S. Kaladevi (supra), reveal that it was only regarding document which was not registered. So far unregistered document is concerned, same can be read for collateral purpose. It will be apposite here to reproduce following portion of the judgment rendered in the case of S. Kaladevi (supra) as under:-

“10. Section 17 of 1908 Act is a disabling section. The documents defined in Clauses (a) to (e) therein require registration compulsorily. Accordingly, sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and more requires compulsory registration. Part X of the 1908 Act deals with the effects of registration and non-registration. Section 49 gives teeth to Section 17 by providing effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. Section 49 reads thus:

Section 49.- Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall-

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power,

unless it has been registered:

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.

11. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence