The absence of a certificate from the Income Tax Department under sections 269uc, 269ul, and 269ub of the Income Tax Act does not render a suit for specific performance of contract non-maintainable, as the provisions only affect the registration of the document and not the maintainability of the suit.

( 1 ) - The Defendant No. 1 in Title Suit 3/90 pending in the court of the Assistant District Judge, 4th court Alipore has called in question about the proprierty of the order No. 76 dated 2. 8. 95 rejecting the prayer of the revision petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C. P. Code.

( 2 ) THE opposite party-plaintiff has filed the suit against the present petitioner who is the defendant No. 1 in the trial court for specific performance of contract of the suit properties. On the ground that the defendant No. 1, which is a trust, had executed a deed of agreement on or about 12. 8. 89 whereby it had agreed to execute the register sale deed on receiving full consideration amount under the, agreement. The earnest money of 2 tars was said to have been advanced. But, when the defendant Hardeodas Agarwall Trust failed to perform its part of contract, a suit for specific performance of contract was brought against it.

( 3 ) THE petitioner after appearance has flied the written statement, inter alia, alleging that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable inasmuch as the other members of the trust have not been impleaded in the suit. It has been further staled that the suit is otherwise not maintainable under section 269ic of the Income Tax Act or sub-section 3 of section 269u8 and sub-section 2 of section 269 UL of the Income Tax Act. But the court after having spurned those contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant revision.

( 4 ) MR. Das, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has critically placed the order by submitting that the learned trial court significantly failed to take into consideration of the provisions of section 269ic, sub-section 3 of section 269 UB and sub-section 2 of section 269ul of the Income Tax Act. It has been further contended that before filing of the suit it was duty of the plaintiff to obtain necessary certificate from the Income Tax Department Failure to secure the requisite certificate from the Income Tax authority would non-suit the plaintiff and consequently the plaint should have been rejected.

( 5 ) THE defendant has taken an inexorable plea that the plaint does not reveal any cause of action, as such, it should also have been rejected by the trial court. But the trial court, unfortunately, could not appreciate the contention of the petitioner and mechanically turned down the prayer of the trust.

( 6 ) THE learned lawyer appearing for the opposite party Mr. Singh has submitted that there is no merit in the application flied by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC since the execution of the agreement has been admitted by the trust and, therefore, it was their duty to obtain necessary permission from the Income Tax Department for executing the deed of conveyance. Thus, it is not legitimate to advance such plea that for the absence of the requisite permission from the authority, the suit is not maintainable. When the trust being itself a defaulting party. It has been strongly contended that the plaint in fact, disclosed cause of action as such there is no merit in the application for throwing the plaint at its threshold.

( 7 ) IT is indisputably true that a plaint without any cause of action, cannot be maintained by the plaintiff and, accordingly. It should be rejected. There could be no quarrel over this position. From the submission of the parties, it appears that when the defendant-trust failed to discharge its obligation as per the agreement dated 12. 8. 89 for the grant of sublease of the premises No. 239, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract. It further appears that the defendant No. 2 in the suit has not yet fled the written statement. The defendant No. 2 is the Managing Trustee of the defendant No. 1 Trust. The plaintiffs grievance is that due to failure by the defendant No. 2 for executing the deed in terms of agreement dated 12. 8. 89, the necessary cause of action has accrued for filing the present suit. Th