1 WP 7751.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7751 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. V.M.Mane, Advocate for the petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :05/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present respondents/original plaintiffs filed a Suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale said to have been executed on 03/02/2011. Defendant no. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] for rejection of plaint/return of plaint. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant no. 1 has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Suit filed by the plaintiffs is not at all 2 WP 7751.2011 maintainable in as much as the said document is not registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The amended provision requires to be taken into consideration. Even the protection U/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] can not be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the agreement of sale is not registered. The learned trial Court has not considered all these aspects and has rejected the application in the casual manner. According to the learned counsel, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code deserves to be allowed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application and the order. 5. The application was filed on the premise that the alleged agreement of sale is not registered nor notarized and is on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/- only. No Suit for specific performance would be maintainable on the basis of such an agreement of sale. Section 17 of the Registration Act would not be applicable in the present case as the alleged agreement of sale does not contain the recital of delivery of possession nor it appears that the plaintiffs have claimed protection U/s 53-A of the said Act. In the plaint also, the plaintiffs have claimed relief of possession. 6. In light of the above conspectus of the matter, no error is committed by the Court in rejecting the said application. 3 WP 7751.2011 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7751.2011 4 WP 7751.2011