Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. During the course of examination of plaintiff No.1, the petitioners/plaintiffs sought to exhibit two Ikrarnamas dated 2.9.87, which was objected by the respondents/defendants stating inter-alia that said Ikrarnamas are compulsorily registrable and it is not duly stamped. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties at that stage held that it is not Ikrarnama but it is conveyance and not admissible in evidence and declined to exhibit the aforestated documents by order dated 27.4.2015.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court declining to exhibit two Ikrarnamas dated 2.9.87 for want of registration and requisite stamp duty, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

3. Mr.Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs, would submit that the order passed by the trial Court runs contrary to proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1908”) and also runs contrary to Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 18