JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed below Exhibit-68 in Special Civil Suit No.11/2009 whereby on the objection raised by the respondents, the document dated 29.6.2006 has not been permitted to be exhibited. 3. The petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 29.6.2006. Along with the prayer for specific performance, there is also prayer to direct the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the suit property. During the trial on 29.11.2012, an order for impounding said document was passed and said document was accordingly impounded. Thereafter, during the course of the petitioner's evidence when the agreement dated 29.6.2006 was sought to be exhibited, an objection was raised by the respondents that the document dated 29.6.2006 was not registered. The trial Court by the impugned order upheld the said objection on the ground that as the document was not registered, it could not be exhibited. 4. Shri M. S. Abbasi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there is recital in the agreement that possession of the suit property was delivered to the petitioner, the same was in fact, never delivered and hence, along with the prayer for specific performance, a prayer for possession was also made. It was submitted that as the possession was never delivered, there was no necessity of registering the document in question. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in Civil Application (Z) No.1/2013 in L.P.A. St. No.18726 of 2012 in W.P. No.1701 of 2012 (Sadanand Laxmikant Jahagirdar & Ors. Vs. Shripad Ramakant Jahagirdar & Ors., decided on 13.1.2015 and submitted that the document in question could be exhibited and considered for collateral purposes. 5. Shri S. S. Alaspurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that as the suit was based on the document dated 29.6.2006 in which it was stated that possession was handed over, said document was required to be registered. He relied upon provisions of Section 17(1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act of 1908)and submitted that unless the agreement was registered, the same could not be duly exhibited. He relied upon provisions of Section 17(1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act of 1908)and submitted that unless the agreement was registered, the same could not be duly exhibited. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Gurbachan Singh v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 2010 Punjab and Haryana 77. He then submitted that there was no pleadings as to why the document was not registered and hence, the petitioner could not be permitted to rely upon said document even for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Act of 1908. He placed reliance on the decision in Pandurang Dharmadhikari Vs. Kusumtai @ Malini Vasantrao Bhagwat 2015(1) ALL MR 168. 6. The agreement dated 29.6.2006 refers to the terms and conditions under which the respondents agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner. There is a recital that possession was being handed over for the purposes of demarcating the plots and for their subsequent sale. In the suit, it has been pleaded that the defendants did not complete the contract and hence, the relief of specific performance was sought. A prayer for possession of the suit property was also made. 7. The provisions of Section 17 (1A) of the Act of 1908 stipulate that a document in relation to a contract to transfer any immovable property for consideration for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is required to be registered if it is executed after 24.9.2001. Similarly, the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1908 also precludes any document required to be registered by Section 17 of the Act of 1908 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but which is not registered to be received in evidence. However, the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 permits such unregistered document to be received as evidence of any collateral transaction. 8. In Gurbachan Singh (supra) on which reliance was placed by the Counsel for the respondents it was held that an unregistered agreement on the basis of which the plaintiff claims to be in possession does not give a right to seek a decree for specific performance and the plaintiff is not entitled to retain possession under the garb of such agreement. It needs to be mentioned that the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Kishan and another Vs. Bijender Mann and others 2013 (2) Civ CC 188 on a reference disagreed with the view taken in Gurbachan Singh (supra) and held as under in para 13: “13. We therefore, hold that : (a) a suit for specific performance, upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement based; (b) the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimises such a contract to the extent that, even through unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract. We, therefore, express our respectful disagreement with the judgment in Gurbachan Singh v. Raghubir Singh (supra) and affirm the judgment in Mool Chand Mindhra v. Smt. Indu Bala, (20113) 163 P.L.R. 378 (R.S.A. No.2056 of 2011). The reference is answered accordingly.” In the present case, the plaintiff is not seeking to protect his possession under the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but has in fact prayed for delivery of possession. 9. The question regarding consideration of an unregistered document for collateral purposes was considered by the Division Bench in Sadanand Jahagirdar (supra) and it was held after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram and others 2010 (5) Mh. L.J. 320 that such document could be considered as evidence for any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Said view has been followed in Writ Petition No.4201/2014 – Bhimrao Jadhav Vs. Nirmala Mendhe decided on 3.8.2015. Considering the facts of the present case wherein prayer for possession has also been made in the suit, the petitioner can be permitted to rely upon the document dated 29.6.2006 by duly exhibiting the same. It is not in dispute that the defendants are actually in possession and hence relief of possession is sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, refusal to exhibit the document dated 29.6.2006 on the ground that it is not registered is not justified. It is not in dispute that the defendants are actually in possession and hence relief of possession is sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, refusal to exhibit the document dated 29.6.2006 on the ground that it is not registered is not justified. The aspect regarding absence of the pleadings in relation to the document not being registered would not prevent the same being exhibited especially when there is a prayer for possession that is made in the plaint. In these peculiar facts, the ratio of the decision in Pandurang (supra) would not be applicable. 10. In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the trial Court refusing to exhibit the document in question cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2013 is set aside and the trial Court shall exhibit the document dated 29.6.2006. It is made clear that exhibition of the document is for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Act of 1908. However, the trial Court shall independently consider the evidentiary value of said document and it would be for the petitioner to prove its contents. 11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.