ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Registration Act') and under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 ('Stamp Act') have been rejected by a common order. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 16.08.2005. During pendency of the suit, when objection was raised about the admissibility of the agreement to sell, the trial court by its order dated 07.08.2006 ordered that the same would be examined at the time of final hearing of the suit. 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2006, which was accepted by this Court on 16.09.2009 and it was directed that the issue of admissibility of the document is to be decided then and there and no at later stage. 4. The trial court by its order dated 11.11.2010 with respect to the admissibility of the agreement to sell impounded the same and forwarded it to the Collector (Stamps) invoking the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The authority by its order dated 07.01.2011 held that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- be recovered as deficient stamp duty and penalty from the plaintiffs. It appears that the petitioners submitted a complaint against the determination made vide order dated 07.01.2011 and the DIG (Stamps), Bhilwara by his communication dated 04.03.2015 came to the conclusion that additional stamp duty of Rs. 82,90,700/- needs to be imposed and, therefore, sought that the matter may be legally got examined and revision petition be filed against the order dated 07.01.2011. 5. The plaintiffs made payment of the deficient stamp duty and penalty as determined by order dated 07.01.2011 and, therefore, the document was returned back after endorsing it to be duly stamped by the authority under the Stamp Act to the trial court. 6. Where after, the present applications were filed by the petitioners seeking to question the admissibility of the document again on the ground of the agreement not being registered and the same being allegedly deficiently stamped. 7. 6. Where after, the present applications were filed by the petitioners seeking to question the admissibility of the document again on the ground of the agreement not being registered and the same being allegedly deficiently stamped. 7. The trial court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order came to the conclusion that as the plaintiffs have already paid the deficient stamp duty and penalty as determined/imposed by the competent authority, if subsequently based on any revision being filed, additional stamp duty is payable, the same would be recovered from the plaintiffs, however, at this stage, it cannot be said that the document cannot be marked as exhibit and granted permission for making exhibit subject to payment of stamp duty in terms of order passed in the proposed revision petition. 8. Regarding the application pertaining to lack of registration, in terms of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, it was held that for lack of registration, it cannot be said that the document is inadmissible in evidence. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the observations made by the DIG (Stamps) dated 04.03.2015 (Annex.-5) that the plaintiffs have paid deficient stamp duty, which is apparent from the said communication and as the document is deficiently stamped, the same cannot be marked as exhibit and the trial court committed error in dismissing the petitioners' applications. It was further submitted that under the provisions of Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, the agreement was compulsorily registerable and in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, for lack of registration, the same could not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property and, therefore, the rejection of another application also is not justified and, therefore, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 11. After the trial court passed the order under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, impounded the agreement and sent the same to the Collector (Stamps) by order dated 11.11.2010, the Collector (Stamps) by his judgment dated 07.01.2011 ordered for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-. 11. After the trial court passed the order under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, impounded the agreement and sent the same to the Collector (Stamps) by order dated 11.11.2010, the Collector (Stamps) by his judgment dated 07.01.2011 ordered for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The plaintiffs paid the said amount and the document along with the endorsement regarding payment of proper stamp duty and penalty was returned back by the Collector (Stamps) to the trial court. 12. Once the stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Collector (Stamps) was paid, under the provisions of Section 46 (2) of the Stamp Act, the same became admissible in evidence as if the same is duly stamped. However, the DIG (Stamps) based on further investigation, came to the conclusion that the stamp duty and penalty imposed was deficient and required payment of additional duty and, consequently, requested the IG (Stamps) to get the same examined legally and file revision petition. 13. Merely because subsequent to the passing of the order by the Collector (Stamps) on 07.01.2011, a departmental view is taken regarding deficient stamp duty and a recommendation is made for filing the revision petition, the said departmental action by itself cannot render an otherwise admissible document as inadmissible and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners was rightly rejected by the trial court. However, the trial court has made observations that the marking of the exhibit would remain subject to passing of any order in the proposed revision petition, which essentially takes care of the petitioners' objection and the matter could not be deferred by the trial court indefinitely. 14. So far as the application regarding inadmissibility based on lack of registration is concerned, a bare reading of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act reveals that an unregistered document affecting immovable property as required by the Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. 15. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 and, therefore, in view of specific statutory provisions, the plea raised by the petitioners based on provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act also has no substance. 16. 15. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 and, therefore, in view of specific statutory provisions, the plea raised by the petitioners based on provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act also has no substance. 16. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the trial court on both the applications filed by the petitioners cannot be faulted on any count. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed.