DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 27.8.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2012 titled as Prashant Singh and Another v. Gangaram and Others, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 13, Rule 3 of CPC.

2. Material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 13, Rule 3 of CPC stating therein that the agreement dated 3.3.2009 is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence, as the same is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff-respondents opposed the application by filing reply thereto. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner observing that the said agreement is scripted on stamp of Rs. 100/- and as the possession of the property was not handed over to the plaintiffs, therefore, the stamp duty is sufficient.

3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a certified copy of the agreement dated 3.3.2009 alleged to be executed by the petitioner Gangaram in favour of the respondent Prashant Singh on non-judicial stamp of Rs. 50/- only. Thus, the observation of learned trial Court that the agreement dated 3.3.2009 is scripted on stamp of Rs. 100/- is factually incorrect.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the objection that the agreement dated 3.3.2009 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration, because the present suit is filed for the specific performance of the contract and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V. R. Somasundaram and Others reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 1654 has held that in a suit for specific performance of contract, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property is also admissible in evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the agreement dated 3.3.2009 is not admissible in evidence as the same is insufficiently stamped. According to the Appendix-D of Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, stamp duty payable on agreement dated 3.3.2009 is Rs. 100/- and the said agreement is scripted on Rs. 50/- only, as such it is insufficiently stamped.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the agreement dated 3.3.2009 is executed on a stamp of Rs. 50/- only, as such it is insufficiently stamped and he is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of stamp duty and penalty, if any.

7. On consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned Court below in support of the impugned order, I deem it just and proper to allow the present writ petition.

8. In view of above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.8.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 106/2012 titled as Prashant Singh and Another. v. Gangaram and Others is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to impound the agreement dated 3.3.2009 and accept the deficit stamp duty and penalty in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

9. In view of the above, the stay application stands disposed of.