-1- WP-6060-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6060 OF 2025 Shri Vyankati S/o. Narbaji More, Age : 51 years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, Through his power of attorney holder Shri Omsingh s/o. Babusingh Gehlot, Age : 56 years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Lohargalli, in front of Ganesh Talkies, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. … Petitioner (Orig. Defendant) Versus Shri Shivkaransinh S/o. Narsinh Thakur, Age : 56 years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Gadipura, Near Habib Talkies, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. … Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) ...… Mr. A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate fo Petitioner. Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Respondent. ...... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026 ORDER : 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 20.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded below Exhibit 47 in Special Civil Suit No. 188 of 2023, whereby petitioner’s application for de- exhibiting agreement to sell dated 01.04.2022 came to be rejected. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.188 of 2023 against petitioner/defendant seeking a decree of specific 2026:BHC-AUG:26040 -2- WP-6060-2026 performance of contract in respect of land Gut No.62/C situated at Vasarni, Nanded. It is alleged that on 01.04.2022, an agreement to sell in respect of suit property was executed by petitioner/ defendant in favour of respondent/plaintiff for consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-, and possession of property was delivered. Petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying execution of agreement and delivery of possession. On basis of pleadings of parties, Trial Court framed issues. Respondent/plaintiff recorded his evidence. 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed evidence affidavit and referred to agreement to sell in his evidence. Accordingly, agreement to sell was admitted at Exhibit 46. At this stage, petitioner-defendant filed application below Exhibit 47 seeking rejection of document on ground that it was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It has not been registered in terms of Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908. Further, it is not sufficiently stamped. As such, it is not admissible in evidence and is liable to be rejected in terms of Order XIII, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court rejected petitioner's prayer vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Mukhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner endeavors to impress upon this Court that, in light of -3- WP-6060-2026 specific pleadings in plaint regarding delivery of possession on basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 01.04.2022, the document could not have been admitted in evidence unless it complies with requirements in terms of Section 34 of Maharashtra Stamp Act. He would further submit that Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 requires compulsory registration once it has been recorded in document containing a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration. He would further submit that Rule 3 of Order XIII of the CPC empowers the Court to reject a document which is inadmissible. Therefore, Trial Court committed patent illegality while exhibiting document and rejecting petitioner's application filed under Order XIII, Rule 3 of CPC. 5. Perusal of agreement to sell dated 01.04.2022 shows that although it is a covenant whereby petitioner and respondent agreed for sale of property, there is no stipulation about delivery of possession. In this backdrop, document is not susceptible to payment of stamp duty. So far as objection as to non-registration is concerned, the proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act makes an exception to general rule and permits unregistered document to be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes and collateral transactions not required to be effected by a registered document. Apparently, circumstances as stipulated in Rule 3, Order XIII of -4- WP-6060-2026 CPC are not discernible from contents of document dated 01.04.2022. 6. Pertinently, objection has been raised after document was already admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 46. It is trite that objection about admissibility of document has to be raised when document is tendered in evidence and not after the same is marked as an exhibit. Reference can be given to law laid by this Court in case of Mr. Farookh Ahmed Meman v. Mr.Kadeer Kadar Meman, 2016 (1) Mh.LJ. 867. 7. Further section 35 of Maharashtra Stamp Act prescribes that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 58 of the Act, be called in question at any stage of same suit or proceeding on the ground that instrument has not been duly stamped. 8. The cumulative reading of Section 35 with Section 58 of Maharashtra Stamp Act makes it crystal clear that the Stamp Act is enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. The non payment of stamp duty is a curable defect and it can be cured at any stage. However, once a document is admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be questioned except under Section 58 of the Act. -5- WP-6060-2026 9. In present case, the Trial Court has appropriately considered the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Stamp Act while declining to entertain petitioner’s application. Pertinently, Section 17(1)(a) of Registration Act comes into operation only when party wants to take benefit of section 53 of Transfer of Property Act and not otherwise. 10. The suit based on unregistered agreement to sell for specific performance of contract is permissible. However, it is always open for Court to examine validity, enforceability and proof of contents thereof on the basis of evidence laid by parties during trial. 11. In that view of matter, this Court finds no substance in Writ Petition. Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Tandale