1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order date 16.2.2017 by which application under section 151 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. The petitioner plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff and the defendants are close relatives. Defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sale date 23.11.2007 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the sale of House No. 530 Katju Nagar Ratlam, in total sale consideration of Rs. 23 lacs. According to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement he paid amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as an advance amount and the defendant has agreed to execute the sale deed within six months. Thereafter the plaintiff has paid amount of Rs. 4 lacs to the defendant No.1.

3. After notice, the defendant filed the written statement denying the averment made in the plaint. Thereafter the trial Court has framed the issues for adjudication. During evidence when the plaintiff has tendered the agreement to sale, the defendant raised an objection that it is neither registered nor properly stamped therefore, it cannot be marked as an exhibit. vide order date 25.2.2015 the trial Court has directed the parties to appear before the Collector (Stamps) on 17.3.2015 for the purpose of impounding but till today, the Collector has not passed any order for impounding.

4. The plaintiff filed an application under section 151 CPC on 5.12.2016 for recalling of order date 25.2.2015 in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Chandmal and another v. Labhchand and another, reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ. The learned “trial Court after considering the judgment has rejected the application filed under section 151 of CPC hence, the present petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for specific performance the agreement to sale is not required to be registered therefore, the learned trial Court has wrongly referred the document to the Collector Stamps for impounding.

6. The learned trial Court vide order date 25.2.2015 has already referred the document to the Collector for impounding and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner at the relevant time but filed the application under section 151 CPC on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of Chandmal (supra). After filing this petition, now the petitioner has filed an application for amendment to challenge the order date 25.2.2015 also. The provision of section 151 CPC cannot be invoked where a specific provision is available in the CPC. The plaintiff could have filed an application for review under the provisions of Order 47 CPC or could have challenged the order date 25.2.2015 by way of writ petition at the relevant point of time. He has filed an application under section 151 CPC on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court therefore, he has adopted wrong procedure of law. The order date 25.2.2015 has attained finality and the same cannot be challenged by way of amendment in this petition. The said order was passed three years back and since last three years, there is no progress in the civil suit hence, no interference is called for.

7. In the case of Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, reported in (2008)9 SCC 648 in para 56 it has been held as under:-

56 We are unable to agree with the view that in such cases, inherent powers may be exercised under section 151 of the Code as held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in SBI. It is settled law that inherent powers may be exercised in those cases, where there is no express provision in the Code. The said power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and specific provisions of law. Since the law relating to transfer is contained in sections 22 to 25 of the Code, and they are exhaustive in nature, section 151 has no application. Even that contention, therefore, cannot take the case of the respondent wife further.

In the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Br