ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order dated 7.1.2020 (Annexure P/4) passed in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2014 by XV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur

2. The facts of the case and the issue involved in the case lie in a narrow compass as would be clear from the narration of the facts stated infra:

3. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and alternatively for refund of amount paid at the time of execution of agreement to sale.

4. During pendency of suit, the documents, which are the foundation of claim i.e. agreements to sale dated 25.11.2011 and 30.6.2012, though got impounded by the plaintiff with the permission of the Court and thereafter an objection was raised by the defendant/petitioner about admissibility of the said documents saying that the said documents required to be registered as per the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘Act, 1908’) and if they are not registered those cannot be taken into evidence for any purpose even for collateral purpose. The trial court by order dated 7.1.2020 (Annexure P/4) has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner saying that an issue has been framed in respect of the said document dated 25.11.2011 and as such it is not proper to refuse to lead evidence in respect of the said document and that being so it is also not proper to refuse to take the said document into evidence, albeit the court has observed that the acceptability of the said document will be decided only after recording the evidence. The said order of the court has given rise to this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 17 (1A) of the Act, 1908 provides registration of document i.e. agreement to sale because section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 relates to transfer of immovable property. He has submitted that the document, if not registered, cannot be used for any purpose even for collateral purpose in view of the amendment made in the Act, 1908 by inserting provision i.e. section 17(F), which has been introduced and inducted in the Act w.e.f. 14.1.2010 as published in the State Gazette. He has submitted that if Section 49 of the Act, 1908 is read in furtherance of the amended provision of section 17(F), it would be clear that the said document even cannot be used in a suit for specific performance or for any collateral purpose. He has also submitted that the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent about maintainability of petition saying that it is premature as the Court has not taken documents in question into evidence is not sustainable reason being the impugned order, according to learned counsel, is very specific and complete because the Court has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and observed that the documents can be used in evidence, but acceptability of the same shall be decided only after recording the statements of witnesses. He has submitted that once the document is taken on record and exhibited, the objection about its acceptability cannot be raised at later point of time and therefore petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of maintainability because it has been filed properly and the impugned order has rightly been assailed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 – K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the nature of suit in the present facts and circumstances of the case is required to be seen. He has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and also claimed the alternative relief saying that if the same is not possible, the amount paid at the time of execution of agreement be refunded to him and according to him that is the collateral purpos