1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3769/2008 {Udai Singh Saini Versus Additional District & Sessions Judge & Another} Date of Order :: 14th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sanjay Mishra for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement in respect of disputed property wherein the defendant–petitioner took an objection that agreement in dispute is unstamped and unregistered, therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence and it cannot be exhibited. The trial court overruled the objection vide impugned order dated 3rd January, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed agreement is unstamped and unregistered, therefore, it could not have been admitted in evidence and further 2 that the trial court has wrongly observed that mere exhibiting the document is not sufficient and whether that document is admissible in evidence or not will be considered at the time of final arguments. He contended that the said objection has to be considered and decided at this stage itself and cannot be left open for decision at the time of final arguments of the case. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the impugned order passed by the trial court. The trial court has considered the document with the pleadings of the parties and has observed that in the present case the plaintiff was already in possession of the disputed property being a tenant in the same. The document- agreement to sale is not required to be registered as it is required to be registered only where the possession of the disputed property is transferred through an instrument. The reasons assigned by the trial court are valid and legal and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error 3 in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 4