1. This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed to set aside the order dated 08.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.686 of 2014 in O.S.No.182 of 2005 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, prayed to allow I.A.No.686 of 2014 rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.182 of 2005. The petitioner/defendant in suit filed I.A.No.686 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter, referred to as “C.P.C.”) to reject the plaint in O.S.No.182 of 2005 pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad on various grounds. The main and very first requirement of law to file a suit for Specific Performance of an agreement of sale is that there should be a valid agreement of sale in view of A.P. State amendment by incorporating clause (g) to Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, with effect from 01.04.1999. As per the said amendment all agreements of sale of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- compulsorily be registered. As the immovable property involved in the agreement of sale dated 06.06.2003 is worth more than Rs.100/-, the said agreement of sale is invalid for want of registration. The said unregistered agreement of sale will not affect transfer of any immovable property and on that ground alone the plaint is liable to be rejected. When there is no chance of succeeding in the plaint and the same is without merits, the suit cannot be continued and the trial Court by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. can reject the plaint and prayed for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.182 of 2005.

2. The respondent – plaintiff filed counter raising several contentions. The respondent – plaintiff mainly contending that the agreement of sale is enforceable under law and the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit. Under law, there is no bar to file suit for Specific Performance of a contract based on unregistered document. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 enables a party to use the unregistered agreement for the purpose of specific performance of the contract. Therefore, the suit is not barred by any law to invoke the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint and that the suit is maintainable, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. The trial Court upon hearing both the counsel, passed the order under challenge, dated 08.02.2016 in I.A.No.686 of 2014 in O.S.No.182 of 2005 rejecting the contention of the defendant on the ground that the agreement is admissible in law and the suit for specific performance is maintainable based on unregistered agreement of sale and thereby the plaint cannot be rejected by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 (a) or (d) of C.P.C. Aggrieved by the order and decreetal order passed by the trial Court referred supra, the present revision is filed almost reiterating the grounds urged before the trial Court and pointed out that the trial Court did not exercise the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (a) or (d) of C.P.C. and when the agreement itself is invalid, which would not affect the immovable property in view of the bar under Section 17 (1) (g) of the Registration Act, as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 4 of 1999 with effect from 01.04.1999. The trial Court has not followed the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the law laid down by the Apex Court in “S.Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and others (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654)” cannot be applied to the present facts of the case since it is based on the law prevailing in Tamilnadu State and the application of law laid down by Apex Court pertaining to Tamilnadu is an error apparent on the face of the record. The trial Court did not consider the amendment to Section 17 (1) (g) of the Registration Act by A.P. Act 4 of 1999 with effect from 01.04.1999 and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

4. During hearing Sri