// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7186/2005 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.6129/2005 Smt. Chandra Kanta W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Jain Versus Smt. Rishal Kanwar W/o Shri Ram Singh and Another Date of Order ::: 08.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Jinesh Jain, Counsel for petitioner Shri Saleem Khan and Shri Mohd. Naeem, Advocates, for Shri Usman Mohd., Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Saleem Khan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of disputed property and, during the pendency of the suit, she moved an application in the trial court along-with three agreements dated 15.10.1991, 25.10.1992 and 08.08.1993, to take the same on the record and to mark exhibits thereon. Initially the exhibits were marked on // 2 // the said documents. However, the defendants raised an objection that these documents have wrongly been exhibited as Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, whereas these are unregistered agreements and should not have been exhibited. The trial court accepted the objection of the defendants and rejected all the three documents vide order dated 12th July, 2005, which is under challenge in this writ petition, preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if these documents/ agreements were unregistered then the same were admissible in evidence for collateral purpose, therefore, the learned trial court committed an illegality in rejecting these documents. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and contended that the learned trial court was justified in rejecting these documents as they were unregistered documents. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court. It appears that these documents/ agreements are unregistered whereas the same were required to be registered in view of the valuation of the property, in dispute. In my // 3 // view the trial court was not justified in rejecting the documents even if they were unregistered as they were at-least admissible for collateral purpose, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting these documents to be taken on the record. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 12th July, 2005 is set-aside and it is directed that all the three documents/agreements will be taken on the record and will be exhibited in the case, however it is made clear that these documents/agreements will be admitted only for collateral purpose. The costs is made easy. In view of this order, the stay application, filed with this writ petition, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//