VASUDEO RAO GETHA Vs. PREMENDRA NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and law are involved in the aforesaid revisions, as such all the three revisions are being taken and decided together by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 is being treated as leading case, as such brief facts of the said case are being detailed out.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell dated 21. 04. 2007 and for its unregistered agreement to sell (Memorandum) dated 21. 04. 2007 in respect of the land bearing Araji No. 721/1 area 26,785 sq. feet situated at Mauja Sikraul, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District Vranasi, against revisionists and respondent No. 2 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi. Since valuation of the suit is higher, it is being tried by Additional District Judge Court No. 10 Varanasi. The suit has been numbered as Original Suit No. 1096 of 2008, Premendra Nath Singh vs. Shankar Govind Getha and others. On presentation of suit, notices were issued and pursuant to the same revisionists entered appearance and filed their written statement. On 17. 10. 2008 an application was also moved under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. , contending therein that as agreement to sell was unregistered document and inadmissible in evidence, as such qua enforcement of the same, suit for specific performance was not maintainable, and in this background suit was liable to be dismissed. Against the application so moved, objections were filed. Thereafter the said application has been considered and rejected. At this juncture, aforementioned revisions have been filed.

(3.) SRI A. K. Gupta, Advocate, appearing with Sri Amit Srivastava, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case application under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. in all eventuality was liable to be allowed, as in no eventuality, decree for specific performance for unregistered agreement to sell of immovable property could be accorded, as such continuation of proceeding was nothing but misuser of the judicial forum, as such in all eventuality, authority ought to have been exercised by rejecting the plaint, as it has been drawn and framed, in exercise of authority vested under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C.