ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 09.08.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), vide which his application dated 09.08.2018 was rejected. Succinctly stated the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction. For the purpose of recording plaintiff’s evidence, the Court appointed one Amit Deru as Commissioner. During the course of recording of evidence on 13.07.2018, two documents, namely, patta dated 19.11.1982 and affidavit dated 07.07.1999 were produced, and the same were marked as Ex.1 and Ex.2 by the plaintiff. After the evidence was recorded, the petitioner-defendant filed an application dated 09.08.2018 and requested the Trial Court to remove the marking of exhibits on the above referred documents, as the patta dated 19.11.1982 and the purported affidavit dated 07.07.2019 were neither registered nor properly stamped. 2. The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s aforesaid application, vide its order dated 09.08.2018, inter alia observing that since the defendant had not raised any objection at the time of marking of exhibit on these documents, he cannot raise such objection. The Trial Court has however observed that the petitioner can challenge the admissibility of the documents at the time of final arguments. 3. Assailing the order impugned passed by the Trial Court, Mr. Narendra Thavi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application, vide order dated 09.08.2018. He pointed out that the statements of the plaintiff were recorded by the Court Commissioner, hence, neither the objection regarding admissibility of the documents could be raised before the Commissioner nor could the same be decided by the Commissioner. Objection regarding the admissibility of the documents could be decided by the Trial Court alone. He further contended that the documents Ex.1 and Ex.2, namely, patta dated 19.11.1982 and the affidavit dated 07.07.1999, amount to transfer of right, interest and title in an immoveable property and any document involving transfer of immoveable property without requisite registration, cannot be tendered in evidence, as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. 4. Mr. He further contended that the documents Ex.1 and Ex.2, namely, patta dated 19.11.1982 and the affidavit dated 07.07.1999, amount to transfer of right, interest and title in an immoveable property and any document involving transfer of immoveable property without requisite registration, cannot be tendered in evidence, as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. 4. Mr. Kharlia, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in rejecting petitioner’s application, while adding that the petitioner’s challenge to the admissibility of the document survives. He argued that the Trial Court shall nevertheless be free to decide the same while deciding the suit finally. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing petitioner’s application dated 09.08.2018, vide which he had prayed to obliterate/remove the exhibit numbers from the above referred documents, marked as Ex.1 and Ex.2. Indisputably, by way of the above referred documents, namely patta dated 19.11.1982 and affidavit dated 07.07.1999, rights, interest and title in the immoveable property has been conveyed. As such sans registration, these documents cannot be led in evidence, in view of clear embargo created by Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. 5. It is to be noticed that the exhibits were marked on these documents during the course of recording of evidence by the Court Commissioner on 13.07.2018 who was not competent to decide objection regarding their admissibility in evidence. This being the position, mere fact that the Commissioner has permitted marking of the exhibits on these documents, cannot preclude the petitioner from raising objection regarding admissibility of the documents. 6. The requirement of registration being quintessential is fatal to the admissibility of the document. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have decided the same at the earliest available opportunity, instead of deferring the same to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit, particularly when the petitioner has raised the objection by way of filing a specific application dated 09.08.2018. 7. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have decided the same at the earliest available opportunity, instead of deferring the same to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit, particularly when the petitioner has raised the objection by way of filing a specific application dated 09.08.2018. 7. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 09.08.2018, passed by the Trial Court, is quashed and set aside; it is declared that the patta dated 19.11.1982 and the purported affidavit dated 07.07.1999, being Ex.1 and Ex.2, are inadmissible in evidence. The contentious documents (Ex.1 and Ex.2) shall be taken-off the record and kept in Part-D.