1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6119/2008 Ramdas & Others Versus Mehant Shri Jagdishram & Others Date of Order :: 6th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma with Mr. Gaurav Sharma for the petitioners Mr. Jinesh Jain for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Jinesh Jain, advocate appears for respondents no. 2 and 3. The respondent no.1 has already died. The service of respondent no.4 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the trial court, wherein petitioners filed an application on 25.9.2007 with the prayer that agreement to sale dated 7th October, 1994 be taken on record and be exhibited. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 9.5.2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 contended that trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their application only on the ground that document in dispute is unregistered, whereas even unregistered document can be taken on record for collateral purpose. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that from the documents annexed with the reply to the writ petition, it is clear that agreement was never executed and the same is not in existence, therefore, there is no use in allowing the petitioners to place on record the said agreement. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court. The trial court has rejected the application only on the ground that this is unregistered agreement. SO far as contention of learned counsel for the respondents that this document was never executed or the same is not in existence, the same cannot be decided at this stage and the same will be considered and decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. So far as admissibility of the document is concerned, it is relevant to mention that even unregistered documents can be 3 taken on record and be exhibited at-least for collateral purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff for placing the said agreement on record. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.5.2008 is set-aside. The trial court is directed to take the agreement to sale on record and the same may be exhibited on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-, which will be paid by the plaintiff- petitioners to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the said document will not be taken on record. The said document will be considered only for collateral purpose. 7. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK