JUDGMENT 1. THE present revisional application is directed against the order dated 31st March, 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Contai in Civil Revision Case No. 7 of 2001 confirming the order dated 25th April, 2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in T.S. 91 of 1991. 2. BY the said order dated 25th April, 2001, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Contai has refused to admit the evidence of agreement between the parties as exhibits as prayed for by the defendant/tenant on the grounds of non-registration. Said order was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Contai in Civil Revision No. 7 of 2001, by order dated 31st March, 2007, which is now assailed. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has submitted that the said instrument is an agreement and does not require any registration by its admission into evidence and the Court below has wrongly refused to admit it as an exhibit. So the said order is liable to be set aside. 3. LEARNED Lawyer for the opposite party, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to section 49 of the Registration Act to be read with section 17(l)(d) of the said Act to show that the instrument though appears to be an agreement, it is in fact a lease of immovable property for a period of six years transferring the possessory right in favour of the tenant as specified in para 2 of the agreement between the parties. 4. PROVISO to section 49 of the Registration Act has made two exceptions for admissions of such documents, i.e., (a) in case of a suit for specific performance under Chapter 2 of Specific Relief Act and (b) as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. From the recital of the said agreement it will appear that the same will not come under the purview of both these exceptions. Therefore, I hold that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Revisional Court have rightly held that instrument required registration cannot be admitted into evidence without registration. In doing so, learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error or illegality, which should be interfered with. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revisional application which is accordingly dismissed. 5. In doing so, learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error or illegality, which should be interfered with. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revisional application which is accordingly dismissed. 5. LEARNED Trial Court below is directed to proceed with the suit as per law and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 6. URGENT photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.