IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2235 of 2007 Smt. Kusum Devi wife of Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of village Maghara, P.O. Maghara, P.S. Deepnagar, District Nalanda…………………………………….….Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Anand Prasad Sinha son of Late Jageshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Kundawapur, P.O. Ekangersarai, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda………. …Plaintiff-Opposite party. 2. Sideshwar Prasad, son of Ganauri Mahto, resident of village and P.O. Maghara, P.S. Deepnagar District Nalanda……………………………. …….Defendant-Opposite party For the petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 06/ 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 20.08.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda, dismissed her application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint of Title Suit No.47 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for specific performance of contract on the basis of oral agreement dated 14.06.2005. In the said suit the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by defendant no.1 on the ground that the suit was barred by law and the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 20.08.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 4. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed on 19.04.2006 on the basis of oral agreement dated 14.06.2005 and 2 neither the suit is under valued for want of stamp nor there is any such defect in the plaint. The learned court below considered the matter in detail and found that the claim of the plaintiff was for specific performance of contract of sale on the basis of aforesaid oral agreement for sale according to which Rs.75,000.00 was alleged to have been paid and as part performance of contract the plaintiff had constructed boundary wall over the suit land and the plaintiff was always ready to perform his part of the agreement and hence the defendant must execute the sale deed as per the agreement. 5. Learned court below also found that the controversial question in dispute between the parties was that whether there was any oral agreement dated 14.06.2005 between the parties and whether the plaintiff had paid Rs.75,000.00 as part performance of contract and had constructed a boundary wall over the land in question. The learned court below rightly found that the provisions of section 17(1- A) and 53A of the Registration Act were not applicable at this stage of the suit, as the suit was based on oral agreement and not on the basis of any written agreement, which was unregistered. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )