ORDER :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.394 of 2019 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.)

1. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.394/19 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.04.2018. The suit was taken on file by the learned Principal District Judge on 03.10.2019 and summons were issued to the defendants.

2. Now the present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the maintainability of the suit since the same is based on an unregistered sale agreement.

3. Heard Mr. M.S. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. E. Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that

i. as per Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2012, Section (1) (f) to (i) were introduced to Section 17 of the Registration Act. This Act came into force with effect from 01.12.2012 and Section 17 (1) (g) mandates that any agreement for sale of an immovable property above the value of Rs.100/- must be registered.

ii. As per Section 49(a) of the Registration Act, no document required to be registered, if not registered shall affect any immovable comprised therein.

iii. Section 2(g) of the Contract Act stipulates that an agreement not enforceable in law is void and since the sale agreement is not registered as mandated under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, the same cannot be enforced.

iv. The suit in O.S. No.394/2019 for specific performance of contract was filed subsequent to Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012 and hence the suit itself is not maintainable.

v. Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act speaks only of reception of document in a suit for specific performance of contract.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners the question involved here is with regard to the maintainability of the suit and not the admissibility of an unregistered sale agreement in evidence. He relied on the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 and contended that in an exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned the High Courts vest with the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. He also relied on the decision in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited vs. Development Consultant Limited reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 wherein it is held that use of an unregistered document to prove an important clause thereof would not be said to be for collateral purpose.

6. Per contra Mr. E. Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the matter in issue is not Res integra inasmuch as the same has been decided by several single Judges as well a Division Bench of this Court in the following cases.

1) Kasthuri vs. R. Hemalatha reported in 2022 (2) CTC 246.

2) D. Devarajan vs. Alphonsa Mary and another reported in 2019 (2) CTC 290.

3) R. Ananda Padmanabhan (deceased) and others vs. R. Vadivel Gounder (deceased) and others reported in (2019) 6 CTC 823 (D.B)

He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jacky vs. Tiny @ Antony & others in SLP (C) No.3909/12 wherein it is held that the High Court under Article 227 has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the power vested in them within the bounds of this authority. If a suit is not maintainable it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in none