JUDGMENT : Mahesh Bhagwati, J. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 14th September, 2011 whereby the Additional District Judge (F.T) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur allowed the respondent-plaintiff to mark exhibit on agreement to sale. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that a suit for specific performance of contract came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 & 3, against the petitioner-defendant. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent intended to exhibit the document agreement to sale, but the petitioner-defendant opposed it and filed an application on 21st July, 2011 stating that the document agreement to sale is chargeable and it cannot be admitted in evidence, unless proper stamp duty is paid on it. The learned trial Court considered only the question of registration and ignoring the issue of stamp duty, arbitrarily allowed the application of plaintiffs-respondents and permitted them to exhibit the said document. 3. Albeit, the learned trial Court is found to have decided the application placing reliance upon the case of S. Kala Devi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. reported in 2010(5) SCC, 401 but the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 is found to be totally sketchy, non-speaking, arbitrary and capricious. It appears that only the citation of the case has been quoted by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order, sans reading the judgment. Had the learned Presiding Officer read the whole judgment, he would have never passed such an illegal order. The Presiding Officer of the Court is of the rank of Additional District Judge, but his act seems to be unlike that of. The judgment is totally arbitrary, which deserves to be outrightly set aside. 4. So far as the question of admissibility of an unregistered document i.e. an unregistered agreement to sale in evidence, is concerned, it is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, but when the question of an instrument to be chargeable with duty, arises, Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as to make it admissible in evidence. Proviso A to Section 35 of the Stamp Act enables a document to be received in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the document is chargeable but not stamped or on payment of deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped, is, of course absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows that if the requirements of Proviso (A) to Section 35 are satisfied, then the document which is chargeable with duty, but not stamped, can be received in evidence. 5. The learned trial Court is found to have passed the impugned order sans observing these provisions of law. The impugned order being illegal and arbitrarily, deserves to be set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned trial Court to decide the application dated 21st July, 2011 filed by the petitioner-defendant afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489 and S. Kala Devi (Supra). 6. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 stands set aside. 7. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.