The main legal point established is that the rejection of a suit cannot be solely based on the non-registration of an agreement of sale, and the determination of possession and entitlement to injunctions should be based on evidence.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - By this petition, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein, challenges the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, dated 18.03.2013, by which the petitioners' application filed 'under' Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

Through its suit, the respondent-plaintiff (company) seeks decrees of prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the petitioner defendant, as also a declaration that the plaintiff be indemnified by the petitioner-defendant to the extent of all losses actually caused by the acts and conduct of the petitioner, in respect of the 'deal' relating to the suit properties, the said properties having been described in the plaint.

2. It was the case of the petitioner in his application under Order 7, Rule 11, that since the plaintiff had instituted the suit actually on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale dated 27.07.2006, therefore with the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed being 22.09.2006, and the suit having filed on 01.05.2010, with the plaintiff also claiming that possession of the suit land had been delivered to it vide the said agreement itself, court fee, ad valorem, as per the value of the suit land, was required to be affixed on the plaint; and that not being so, the suit could not be entertained and was to be rejected on that ground itself.

It was further contended that even though delivery of possession in part performance of the agreement of sale was not admitted by the present petitioner (defendant), however, since that was the intention of the respondent-plaintiff, that the agreement itself also was required to be compulsorily registered, with adequate stamp duty paid, in fact the plaintiffs' only remedy qua the agreement of sale was to seek a suit for specific performance, which should have been filed within three years of 27.07.2006.

3. As per the petitioner in his application, in fact, even the earnest money paid by the respondent-plaintiff (prospective vendee) stood forfeited on account of the sale deed not having been registered by it up til the date stipulated in the agreement and the suit was also therefore time barred and needed to be dismissed on that ground also.

4. In reply to the aforesaid contentions made by the petitioner in his application, the respondent-plaintiff had stated before the trial Court that in fact it was the petitioner-defendant who had failed to obtain necessary permission/'no objection certificate' from various authorities, including the Haryana Urban Development Authority and the Gas Authority of India Limited, after which only "a proper and effective transfer of title" could be made.

Therefore, as per the respondent herein, the date for registration of the sale deed stood extended till the petitioner performed his part of the contract, which the respondent-plaintiff had been always ready and willing to execute.

In its reply to the application, it was further denied by the respondent that the only remedy available to it was a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement, because the agreement was valid till the petitioner performed his part of the contract.

Lastly, it was contended (as recorded in the impugned order), that the application had been filed only with the ulterior motive of prolonging the litigation.

5. The learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 18.03.2013, after considering the pleadings in the application thereto, as also the arguments of learned counsel before it, eventually held that the suit of the plaintiff cannot be rejected merely because the agreement of sale had not been registered, with the agreement itself not in dispute and it also having been admitted that "delivery of possession also goes in favour of the plaintiff".

6. While coming to the short conclusion, some judgments cited by the counsel on both sides were referred to but with no detailed reasoning given by that Court, other than