JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7/12/2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metro, Jaiupr (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.4 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants raising objections against exhibiting the document, namely, the certified copy of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.91 of 1990, produced by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. 2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction against the present petitioners, and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement, and on the ground of denial of title and alternative accommodation. It has been alleged in the said suit that the suit premises was originally let out by Shri Gorvardhan Das Malpani to M/s. Saraavagi Finance & Credit Corporation, a partnership firm, by executing a rent note dated 25/09/1968. As per the further case of the respondent-plaintiff, in a suit for partition being No.91 of 1990, filed by Naval Kishore Malpani, against the respondent-plaintiff, Gorvardhan Das Malpani and others, the decree came to be passed on 25th August, 1998, where under the premises in question had fallen into the share of the respondent-plaintiff. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioners, and the other defendants by filing the written statement denying the allegations/averments made in the eviction suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. It appears that when the suit was fixed for recording of the evidence, the respondent-plaintiff submitted the affidavit for examination-in-chief and produced the documents, one of them being the certified copy of the decree dated 25th August, 1998 passed in the Civil Suit No.91 of 1990, marking it as Ex.13. The petitioners-defendants having raised objection against the admissibility of the said document in evidence on the ground of being not registered and not duly stamped, the Tribunal has dismissed the said objection vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. The petitioners-defendants having raised objection against the admissibility of the said document in evidence on the ground of being not registered and not duly stamped, the Tribunal has dismissed the said objection vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. G.P. Sharma for the petitioners that the document in question being not registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and not duly stamped as required under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act'), the same could not be read in evidence. Placing reliance on the definition of the "instrument of partition" as contained in Section 2(xx), he submitted that the decree in question was required to be duly stamped as per the provisions contained in the Stamp Act, and the same being not duly stamped could not be read in evidence for any purpose, as per Section 39 of the Stamp Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has decided the application in a very cursory manner without dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the impugned order being illegal, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the Trial Court ought to have referred the document to the Collector for examination under Section 37 of the Stamp Act. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Daga for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the decree was duly stamped as per the direction given by the concerned Court and the certified copy of the said decree having been produced by the respondent, the same is admissible in evidence. He also submitted that the decree passed by the Court is not required to be compulsorily registered in view of the provisions contained in Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act. 5. Although the learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioners had initially raised the objection that the document was the photostate copy of the decree as referred to in the impugned order, he had subsequently conceded that the document was the certified copy of the decree in question. 5. Although the learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioners had initially raised the objection that the document was the photostate copy of the decree as referred to in the impugned order, he had subsequently conceded that the document was the certified copy of the decree in question. As regards the admissibility of the document, though it is true that the document, which requires registration under the Registration Act if is not registered, would not be admissible in evidence except as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, it is required to be noted that the decree or order of a Court, except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or the proceeding, is not required to be registered in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Mr. Sharma has failed to point out as to how the document would not fall under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Even otherwise, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, such document could be received as evidence of the collateral transaction. 6. So far as the contention of Mr. Sharma with regard to the document in question being not sufficiently stamped is concerned, it may be noted that as transpiring from the decree itself, the concerned Court, while passing the decree, had directed the parties to get the decree duly stamped on non-judicial stamp paper for the purpose of being enforced, and subsequently the parties to the suit having furnished the stamp paper of Rs. 8,500/-, the decree was drawn and duly signed by the concerned Court. It appears that the Tribunal has not dealt with the said issue of the document being not duly stamped, in the impugned order, which ought to have been dealt with by it when the contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and therefore the reasoning part of the impugned order appears to be faulty to that extent. However, as transpiring from the certified copy of the decree in question, the concerned Court appears to have signed the said decree after verifying whether the requisite stamp duty was paid or not by the concerned parties, and therefore, prima facie it appears that the decree in question was duly stamped. However, as transpiring from the certified copy of the decree in question, the concerned Court appears to have signed the said decree after verifying whether the requisite stamp duty was paid or not by the concerned parties, and therefore, prima facie it appears that the decree in question was duly stamped. Merely because the petitioners-defendants had raised the issue as regards the deficiency of stamp duty, the Court or the Tribunal is not bound to refer it to the concerned Authority under the said Act, for examination. The Court therefore does not find any merits in the present petition. However, it is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the decree. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed.