JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case comes up on an application preferred by the respondent for early hearing of the writ petition. The same is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Since the controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard and decided at this stage.

3. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 03.09.2016, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the fact of admissibility of non registered documents is concerned, the learned trial court rightly held that the same is admissible in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned counsel submits that if the document is not stamped, then as per Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 unless the requisite stamp duty is paid after impounding the document, is not admissible and therefore, the learned tr