IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.118 of 2009 LALITA DEVI Versus NISHI BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the O.P. No. 1: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate 5/ 13.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed a petition requesting the court to reject the plaint in the light of the provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure pointing out that the agreement which was the basis for filing the suit not being registered and the value of the transaction above Rs.100/-, the very suit was barred by the provision of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The court below held that the suit could not be dismissed on the preliminary issue because that related to the mixed question of law and fact both and further held that it was not obligatory that the agreement to sale was to be registered. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to me different provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act as also the relevant part of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not want to express any opinion on these provisions merely because the observations may prejudice the final result of the case. I could point out that the preliminary issue may not be decided as regards the maintainability of the suit if many issues are to be decided by the trial court. If the trial court was entertaining an opinion that the issue which was attempted to be framed and thrashed - 2 - through the impugned order, was a mixed question of law and facts both, then also, I do not want to say much about it because the issue has to be decided after taking evidence of the witnesses relevant for the purpose. As regards merit of the order, I do not find it suffering from any material irregularity and illegality and as such, revision petition has no substance. The same is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)