JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 28.02.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajsamand, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 ('the Act') and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('Registration Act') has been rejected by the trial court. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 03.07.1987 against the petitioners; during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application, inter alia, indicating that the plaintiff has produced his affidavits in evidence and wanted to exhibit a document as Exhibit-1, which is not executed on sufficient stamps and which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and, therefore, the document was not admissible in evidence and the plaintiff be not permitted to mark the same as exhibit. 3. A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff; it was indicated that the application was not maintainable; the suit was for specific performance of the agreement, wherein, registration of the document was not necessary; the document has been executed on a stamp of Rs.5/- on 03.07.1987, which at the relevant time was sufficient and, if the same is found as insufficient, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the penalty and, therefore, the application be rejected. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the document was executed on 03.07.1987, which at the relevant time under the Rajasthan stamp law, appears to be correct; the petitioners failed to point out as to how the stamp duty was insufficient and the document should have been executed on how much stamp and, consequently, dismissed the same. 5. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged agreement to sale dated 03.07.1987 (Annexure-3) indicates that the possession of the land has been handed over to the plaintiff and the same has been executed only on a stamp of Rs.5/- and further the same has not been got registered; it was submitted that in view of the explanation attached to the entry pertaining to conveyance in the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, as the possession of the property has been handed over, the document needs to bear a stamp duty equivalent to conveyance; it was further submitted that under the provisions of Section 17(f) of the Registration Act, as amended in Rajasthan, the document is compulsorily registrable for the same reason of handing over of possession and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners; it was also submitted that the stamp duty on document has to be calculated, as prescribed, on the date when the document was sought to be exhibited. 6. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Hari Singh & Anr. v. Himmat Singh & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1304/2012 decided on 20.11.2014. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified as the document in question bears the sufficient stamp duty as it existed at the time of its execution and the submissions made by the petitioners have no basis, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. At the outset it may be noticed that the document is dated 03.07.1987. Section 17 of the Stamp Act reads as under:- "17. Instruments executed in India - All instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution." 10. From the above provision it is ex facie clear that the chargeability of stamp duty has to be examined on the date of execution of the document and not at the time the same is sought to be exhibited as claimed by the counsel for the petitioners. 11. From the above provision it is ex facie clear that the chargeability of stamp duty has to be examined on the date of execution of the document and not at the time the same is sought to be exhibited as claimed by the counsel for the petitioners. 11. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the explanation to the entry pertaining to 'conveyance' is concerned, the said entry was amended by Rajasthan Finance Act, 1997 w.e.f. 12.03.1997, wherein, an explanation providing that an agreement to sell an immovable property shall in case of transfer of possession of such property at the time of or after the execution of any such instrument, be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be chargeable accordingly. The operation of the said explanation is not retrospective and, therefore, the same has no application. 12. Similarly, the provisions of Section 17(f) of the Registration Act was introduced by Rajasthan Act, 1989 w.e.f. 18.09.1989 and, therefore, the said provision also has no application to the document in question. The document would squarely fall within the entry pertaining to 'agreement' as it existed on 03.07.1987 and stamp duty for an agreement at the relevant time i.e. w.e.f. 18.05.1987 for an agreement was Rs.5/- only, which the document in question bears and, therefore, it cannot be said that the document is insufficiently stamped. 13. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the document sought to be produced and marked as exhibit by the plaintiff was compulsorily registrable and/or was insufficiently stamped. 14. So far as the order of this Court in Hari Singh (supra) is concerned, the same pertained to a purported sale deed, which was inscribed on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-, admittedly, the document in question is not a sale deed, but the same is an agreement to sale only and, therefore, the order in the case of Hari Singh (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.