1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.813/2008 Munna Versus Om Prakash & Another Date of Order :: 24th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sandeep Jain for the petitioner Mr. Satyavrat Sharma for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The defendant no. 9–petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 15th December, 2007 passed by the trial court, whereby his application dated 1st September, 2007 under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC to take the document dated 14th January, 2002 on record has been dismissed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was impleaded as defendant no. 9 subsequently in a suit, therefore, he filed an application to take the agreement dated 14th January, 2002 on record to show his possession over the disputed property. 2 He contended that the trial court has committed an illegality in not taking the same on record on the ground that it is on insufficient stamp and un-registered. He contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and Others Versus Nihal Singh and Others {(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161} has held that unstamped and unregistered sale deed can at least be looked into for the collateral purpose of nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the land. He, therefore, contended that the only purpose of defendant no. 9 to place on record this document is to show his possession over the disputed property, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred above, the impugned order passed by the trial court be set-aside and the document in question be taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents contended that he has already admitted the possession of the defendant no.9 in the plaint, therefore, there is no need to take the said document on record for the purpose of possession and trial court has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order rejecting the application of the defendant no. 9 – petitioner. He contended that 3 there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned order dated 15th December, 2007 in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh's case (supra). The alleged document i.e. so called agreement (Annexure-2) has been placed on record with the writ petition and after considering the same, I am of the view that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh's case (supra), trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The document placed on record by him should have been taken on record for the collateral purpose. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th December, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by defendant no. 9 under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC is allowed. He document in question is directed to be taken on record. It will be exhibited as a document on behalf of defendant no. 9. However, it will be open for the plaintiff to raise other legal questions about its admissibility at the time 4 of final disposal of the suit. 8. There will be no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK