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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order impugned, contended that the court below has erred in rejecting petitioner's application, holding that as the document in question was being used for collateral purpose, it is admissible in evidence, as provided in proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court towards two vital facts that the agreement in question was executed on 25.3.1983 and Clause (f) of Section 17 had been inserted in the Registration Act, by way of Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1989 with effect form 18.9.1989. Based on these facts, Mr. Joshi, argued that even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted that the purpose for which the agreement in question meant to be used or relied upon, is not 'collateral purpose'; then also the petitioner's application under Section 49 of Registration Act deserved rejection, as the agreement in question did not require registration at the time of its execution in 1983.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the contentious agreement and the order impugned.

7. The learned court below while, passing the order under scrutiny has held that the agreement in question can be read in evidence, as it was sought to be used for 'collateral purpose'; this reasoning, in considered opinion of this Court is, erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

8. Looking to the dissension involved, when the plaintiff himself had placed reliance upon the agreement dated 25.3.1983, with a view to establish his position as land lord/owner/title holder of the property, it cannot be said that the said document has been used for collateral purpose. As a matter of fact such document is the fulcrum of plaintiff's case. Hence the basis or reasoning given by the Court below that "the document is admissible in evidence even without registration, having been used as collateral purpose" is erroneous and untenable.

9. This Court however finds substance in the submissions of Mr. Joshi that the agreement in question did not require registration at all. On the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 25.3.1983, there was no requirement of registration as Clause (f) of Section 17 came to be implanted by the Rajasthan Amendment Act, with effect from 18.9.1989 only, as s