Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 2016 by learned Sub-Judge, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur by which petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Petitioners herein are defendant nos.1 and 2 in the Title Suit No.15 of 2016 filed by opposite party no.1 (plaintiff) for a relief for specific performance of contract with other reliefs on the basis of deed of contract for sale/Mahadanama dated 11.05.2014 on Non-Judicial stamp paper. It is stated that petitioner/defendant no.1 Shanti Devi has taken Rs.37 lacs and executed affidavit of receipt dated 05.11.2014 before Notary Public on which petitioner/defendant no.2 Manoj Pandey is a witness and given possession on the said land with assurance to execute registered sale deed. The petitioners came to know that defendant no.1 got permission from Consolidation Officer in this regard then she told that she has sold the land to defendant no.2 Manoj Pandey. The said amount has not been returned by the defendant no.1 nor executed the sale deed, hence the plaintiff filed the said suit. Petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement challenging the suit on various grounds, denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the said deed of contract/Mahadanama are false and fabricated and not executed by petitioner/defendant no.1 and she never accepted any amount from the plaintiff and no claim shall be made on the basis of an unregistered contract for sale. The petitioners filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C. on 25.06.2016 for rejection of the plaint in view of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 which provides mandatory registration of document containing contract to transfer of immovable property for consideration. Accordingly, suit based on such unregistered agreement to sell is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and in such circumstances no cause of action arose for filing the suit. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the mandatory provisions of law of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and is liable to be set aside.

5. He has further submitted that the alleged deed of contract for sale (Mahadanama) and alleged affidavit of receipt of money by petitioner no.1 and witnessed by petitioner no.2 are false and fabricated and no claim can be made on the basis of an unregistered contract for sale and the suit for specific performance based on it is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the C.P.C. as no cause of action arose for filing this suit which is frivolous and complete abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention he referred and relied on the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) P.L.J.R. 674 and judgment dated 23.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1283.

6. In Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) this Court held that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 requirement of registration of document containing contract to transfer immovable property for consideration is mandatory, if they have been executed after commencement of The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001. If such document is not registered on or after commencement, it shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2022 in Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1283 observed, considering the fact of that case, that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same wa