IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.750 of 2007 Jugal Kishore Prasad & Anr Versus Surendra Sharma ----------- 3. 19.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by Sub Judge, I, Danapur in Title Suit No.169 of 2005 rejecting the petition filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint. The Title Suit No. 169 of 2005 has been filed praying for a decree for specific performance of contract with respect to Schedule 1 property mentioned in the plaint and after the grant of the said relief the prayer has been made for the execution of the sale deed and for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff or in the alternative for recovery of possession in case the plaintiff is found dispossessed from the suit property. (1) The case of the plaintiff, in short and relevant for the present purpose, is that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and accordingly executed a deed of Baibeyana dated 08.06.2003 in favour of the plaintiff 2 after taking part of the consideration money .The plaintiff has further stated that he has purchased the property of the brother of defendant no.1 also which is in the same holding and after amalgamating the two portions he is continuing in possession. However, in view of the refusal by the defendant to execute the agreed sale deed the present suit has been filed with the aforesaid reliefs . (2) The defendants appeared and filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. asserting that the plaint be rejected because the suit is barred by the amended provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the agreement for sale on which the plaintiff is basing his claim is not a registered document and therefore the same shall not be enforceable in law . The learned court below has heard the parties and by the impugned order has dismissed the petition field by the defendant as aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced the submission that in view of the amendment in the Registration Act and Transfer of Property made in the year 2002 the agreement for sale relied upon by the plaintiff was required to be registered and the same will 3 not be enforceable in law for want of registration. He has further submitted that the learned court below has not properly appreciated this issue and has wrongly rejected the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the defendant petitioner to agitate the issue which he had agitated by filing the petition under Order 7, Rule 11(d) and the same shall be decided in accordance with law by the Court at the time of final hearing and disposal of the suit. Nitesh (V. Nath, J.)