Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

Moorti Mandir Baba Ramdev Virajman Rajendrapura, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer (plaintiff-petitioner) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents before the learned trial court claiming that the property in dispute having been bestowed upon them by way of gift by one Smt. Laxmi Devi who also has written a document dated 31/03/1989 mentioning that she has already handed over the demised property to the adjacent temple of Baba Ramdev Ji two years back for which she has a document on Rs.5/- stamp paper so that it may be used in future. Affidavit of one Mr. Jeetmal, in support of the aforesaid averments, was filed and the said document written by Smt. Laxmi Devi was marked by the court below as Exhibit-1.

2. The defendant-respondent challenged the said action of the court below in marking the document dated 31/03/1989 as Exhibit-1 on the ground that it is neither registered nor properly stamped.

3. Accepting the said objection, the learned trial court has passed the order impugned dated 15/09/2009 cancelling the said document as an Exhibit on the ground that it is not registered in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and was therefore, not admissible in evidence.

4. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred a review petition before the learned trial court seeking review of the order dated 15/09/2009. However, the learned trial court passed an order dated 24/11/2009 in review, which is also impugned herein, whereby the trial court has refused to review its order dated 15/09/2009 on the ground that the documents were not appropriately stamped.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sainath Mandir Trust Vs. Vijaya and others, (2011) 1 SCC 623 wherein it was held as under :-

19. It is no doubt true that the gift deed was an unregistered instrument and no title could pass on the basis of the same under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, when the document is in the nature of a dedication of immovable property to God, the same does not require registration as it constitutes a religious trust and is exempt from registration.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner also relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Moorti Shri Adeshwar Bhagwan Jain Swetamber Mandir, Bharatpur Vs. Shimbhunath Singh, (2007) AIR(Rajasthan) 46 wherein it was held as under :-

6. In view of the above decisions the question No. 1 formulated by this Court is answered that Exhibit-3, gift-deed dated 16-2-1908 executed by Mst. Koka Devi in favour of plaintiff Moorti Shri Adeshwar Bhagwan, is a document whereby disputed property was dedicated to God and was not required to be registered and was admissible in evidence for all purposes and not only for collateral purposes.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner also relies on the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of I.B.P. Company and another Vs. Smt. Chandrabai and others, (1999) 2 RajLR 302 wherein it was held as under :-

9. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that invariably almost in all civil suits wherein either application under Sub-rules (1) or (2) Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is allowed or rejected the party against whom the order is passed rushed up in revision under the amended Sec. 115, CPC and now this Court is flooded with such revisions. One of the reason for filing such revisions is that aggrieved party considers that once a document is received in evidence either under Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2) or Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC its relevancy, admissibility and reliability can not be questioned at subsequent stage. The aforesaid notion is misconceived for the reasons discussed hereinabove within the meaning of Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC. The reception of documents under Sub-rules (1) or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is within the discretion of the trial court subject to re-assessment by the appellat