( 1 ) COMMON questions of fact and law are involved in the aforesaid revisions, as such all the three revisions are being taken and decided together by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 is being treated as leading case, as such brief facts of the said case are being detailed out. ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case is that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell dated 21. 04. 2007 and for its unregistered agreement to sell (Memorandum) dated 21. 04. 2007 in respect of the land bearing Araji No. 721/1 area 26,785 sq. feet situated at Mauja Sikraul, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District Vranasi, against revisionists and respondent No. 2 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi. Since valuation of the suit is higher, it is being tried by Additional District Judge Court No. 10 Varanasi. The suit has been numbered as Original Suit No. 1096 of 2008, Premendra Nath Singh vs. Shankar Govind Getha and others. On presentation of suit, notices were issued and pursuant to the same revisionists entered appearance and filed their written statement. On 17. 10. 2008 an application was also moved under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. , contending therein that as agreement to sell was unregistered document and inadmissible in evidence, as such qua enforcement of the same, suit for specific performance was not maintainable, and in this background suit was liable to be dismissed. Against the application so moved, objections were filed. Thereafter the said application has been considered and rejected. At this juncture, aforementioned revisions have been filed. Against the application so moved, objections were filed. Thereafter the said application has been considered and rejected. At this juncture, aforementioned revisions have been filed. ( 3 ) SRI A. K. Gupta, Advocate, appearing with Sri Amit Srivastava, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case application under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. in all eventuality was liable to be allowed, as in no eventuality, decree for specific performance for unregistered agreement to sell of immovable property could be accorded, as such continuation of proceeding was nothing but misuser of the judicial forum, as such in all eventuality, authority ought to have been exercised by rejecting the plaint, as it has been drawn and framed, in exercise of authority vested under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. ( 4 ) COUNTERING the said submission Sri R. K. Singh Kaushal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, contended that specific case of oral agreement to sell has been pleaded in addition to unregistered document and in this background, once none of the grounds mentioned for rejection of plaint as contained under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. was available, the application in question has rightly been rejected. ( 5 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges, is to the effect that in the original suit filed it has been pleaded that there was oral agreement to sell inter se parties and in lieu of the same an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given in advance. Further in addition to it, unregistered document was also there, and in furtherance of the oral agreement part performance by Shankar Govind Getha has been there in favour of Smt. Manju Singh and Gulab Shankar Mishra, who were nominated by plaintiff. Prayer made in the said plaint was to honour the oral agreement in favour of the plaintiff or nominee of the plaintiff. Alternative payer is also made that whatever other entitlement is found by the court, qua the same also decree be passed. ( 6 ) AT this juncture, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. are being looked into. The said provisions read as under: "order VII plaint 11. Alternative payer is also made that whatever other entitlement is found by the court, qua the same also decree be passed. ( 6 ) AT this juncture, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. are being looked into. The said provisions read as under: "order VII plaint 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action (b) where the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp papers within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injuries to the plaintiff. " ( 7 ) A bare perusal of the provisions aforequoted would go to show that the plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action; where the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court, fails to do so; where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp papers within the time fixed by the Court, fails to do so; and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. ( 8 ) IN the present case contention of the revisionists has been that from the averments mentioned in the plaint suit is barred by law, and for said preposition judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. Devesh Behari Saxena, 2008 (1) AWC 664, has been relied upon by the revisionists. Paragraphs 10, 12, 15 and 16 of the said judgment being relevant are being quoted below: "10. Admittedly the plaintiff never asked the defendant to get the agreement dated 22. 01. 1993 registered. Although a notice was got served on the defendant by the plaintiff on 24. 01. 1995, but in that notice also, the defendant was not required to get the said agreement registered. The said agreement was never presented by the plaintiff before Sub-Registrar concerned for getting the same registered and no notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar to the defendant to come to his office for the purpose of registration of the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid mandatory provisions of the Registration Act, in our considered view, the suit for mandatory injunction for direction to the defendant to get the agreement in question registered is not legally maintainable and hence the decree passed in this regard by the court below is not in accordance with law. This point is therefore, decided accordingly in favour of the defendant-appellant. 12. In view of the aforesaid provision, the contract for sale of immovable property in Uttar Pradesh has to be a registered document. Section 49 of the Registration Act, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh after its amendment by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976, provides that no document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or of any other law for the time being in force, to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power or creating such right or relationship, unless it has been registered. In view of this provision, an unregistered agreement to sell of immovable property is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the agreement dated 22. 01. 1993, being an unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence and it could be taken into consideration for passing a decree for its specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. In view of this provision, an unregistered agreement to sell of immovable property is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the agreement dated 22. 01. 1993, being an unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence and it could be taken into consideration for passing a decree for its specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. This Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others AIR 2004 Allahabad 335 has held that unregistered document of contract for sell in respect of immovable property cannot be enforced under Specific Relief Act. Therefore, in our view the decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 passed by court below is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. POINT NO. 3. 15. Placing reliance on the case of Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah vs. Bala Gurappagari Guruvireddy (1999)7 SCC 114 , it was submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that comprehensive suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 and for delivery of possession coupled with mandatory injunction for direction to get the said agreement registered is legally maintainable. We have carefully gone through this ruling. In our view, this ruling does not render any assistance to the plaintiff-respondent, because in that case sale deed was executed, but the vender had refused to appear before the Sub Registrar for the purpose of its registration, whereas in instant case, the defendant was never asked by the plaintiff to get the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 registered. It is not the case of plaintiff that he had asked the defendant to get the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 registered and he had refused to appear before Sub Registrar concerned for getting the said agreement registered. In Uttar Pradesh, agreement to sell requires registration after amendment of section 17 of the Registration Act by Amending Act No. 57 of 1976. No effort was ever made by the plaintiff to avail the remedy provided in the Registration Act to get the said agreement registered. According to the witnesses, which have been examined by the plaintiff in court below, the agreement dated 22. 01. 1993 was executed merely for the purpose of obtaining requisite permission from Income Tax authorities and thereafter, second agreement was to be executed and registered for transfer of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff. According to the witnesses, which have been examined by the plaintiff in court below, the agreement dated 22. 01. 1993 was executed merely for the purpose of obtaining requisite permission from Income Tax authorities and thereafter, second agreement was to be executed and registered for transfer of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff. Having regard to all these facts, in our considered view, the comprehensive suit instituted by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to get the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 registered first and thereafter, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff is not legally maintainable, because as stated earlier also, the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 being unregistered document is not admissible in evidence and this agreement does not confer any right on the plaintiff to institute the suit for specific performance of the contract for transfer of disputed property. This point also is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff-respondent. 16. In view of our findings mentioned herein-above, the impugned decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the agreement to sell dated 22. 01. 1993 registered and, thereafter, its specific performance for getting the sale deed executed and registered as well as delivery of possession cannot be sustained. The court below has held in the impugned decree that if due to pendency of appeal in Honble Supreme Court or non availability of no objection certificate from the competent authority, specific performance of the said agreement become impossible, then the plaintiff would be entitled to get back his earnest money of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 22. 01. 1993 to 14,04,1995 and thereafter @ 6% per annum from 15. 04. 1995. Due to legal lacuna in the agreement to sell, the plaintiff-respondent is being deprived to get valuable property in NOIDA. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get interest on his earnest money, which should be refunded to him. The interest @ 18% per annum is on higher side, whereas the interest @ 6% per annum is on lower side. The ends of justice would meet, if interest @ 12% per annum from 22. 01. 1993 till recovery is granted to the plaintiff on his earnest money. Although in alternative, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 13,21,000/- as damages in addition to the relief of refund of his earnest money of Rs. The ends of justice would meet, if interest @ 12% per annum from 22. 01. 1993 till recovery is granted to the plaintiff on his earnest money. Although in alternative, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 13,21,000/- as damages in addition to the relief of refund of his earnest money of Rs. 7,00,000/- , but in our view, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages from the defendant, because he (plaintiff) has not suffered any loss due to any act or omission on the part of defendant. " From the side of respondents, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Honble Apex Court, in the case of Panchanam Dhara Vs. Monmata Nath Maity 2006 All CJ 2170 for the preposition that oral agreement for sale is permissible. Paragraph 35 of said judgment is being extracted below:"35. An oral agreement for sale is permissible in law. There is furthermore no dispute that the agreement for sale was entered into by three directors of the company. The subsequent letters written on behalf of the company clearly demonstrate that all the directors were aware of the said agreement. The company before the trial Court never chose to file any written statement or dispute the contentions raised in the plaint. The company, thus, never denied or disputed the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the said agreement. The company never denied or disputed the terms of the agreement nor raised any plea that the agreement was not binding on the company or the same was illegal. In fact in the deeds executed in favour of the agreement, it had clearly been stated that the suit for specific performance of contract filed by respondent no. 1 was pending. " ( 9 ) THE judgment quoted above of this Court would go to show that therein view has been taken that unregistered document for sale in respect of immovable property cannot be enforced under Specific Relief Act, and in this background decree for specific performance of agreement to sell was held to be illegal and unsustainable. ( 10 ) IN State of U. P. by U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976, U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976, Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act as amended in State of U. P. provides for every contract of sale of immovable property w. e. f. 1. 1. ( 10 ) IN State of U. P. by U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976, U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976, Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act as amended in State of U. P. provides for every contract of sale of immovable property w. e. f. 1. 1. 77 to be made only by way of registered documents. Section 49 of Registration Act, as applicable to State of U. P. provides that no document required to be registered under Section 17 or by any provision of Transfer of property Act or of any other law in force, to be registered, shall effect any immovable property comprised therein, or be received as evidence of any transaction effecting such property or conferring such power or creating such right or relationship, unless it has been registered. Oral agreement to sell w. e. f. 01. 01. 77 in the State of U. P. qua sale of immovable property is not permissible and the same is not at all recognised in law. In the case of Panchnam Dhara Vs. Monmatha Nath Maity 2006 All CJ 2170, Honble Apex Court, has been considering suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 18. 04. 71, i. e. much prior to 1. 1. 77 and therein view has been taken that oral agreement for sale is permissible in law. Provisions as applicable in the State of U. P. were not there in the State of West Bengal, requiring compulsory registration of document of contract of sale, and as such the said judgment has to be seen in the context in which it has been decided. ( 11 ) IN the present case, this much is clear that plea has been set up that there has been oral agreement and further plea has been set up that pursuant to oral agreement part of contract has been honoured by one set of Defendant, namely Sri Shankar Govind Getha and in favour of some of the incumbents namely Smt. Manju Singh and Sri Gulab Shankar Mishra sale deed has been executed, who were nominated by the plaintiffs. Even this Court in the case of Vijai Kumar Verma (supra) at no point of time has said that the suit is barred; rather the view has been taken that it cannot be decreed, as agreement dated 29. 01. Even this Court in the case of Vijai Kumar Verma (supra) at no point of time has said that the suit is barred; rather the view has been taken that it cannot be decreed, as agreement dated 29. 01. 1993, being unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into account for passing decree of specific performance. There is vast difference between the two; that the proceedings are barred and that the proceedings cannot be decreed. Under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. only those proceedings can be quashed and plaint can be rejected where the proceedings are barred or same discloses no cause of action. Neither the Specific Relief Act nor the Indian Registration Act nor the Transfer of Property Act bars filing of any suit, rather cumulative reading of the same provides that agreement is not admissible in evidence, and same will confer no right, but here, in the present case alternative plea has also been set in the plaint for grant of any other relief to which the Court deems fit, in the facts of the case. This position has not been disputed that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been taken by way of advance. Even if accepting for the sake of argument that the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed, and in view of the fact that specific performance is impossible, as per the law applicable in the State of U. P. but certainly the court concerned can issue directives for refund of the amount in question, as has been held by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case and as per the provisions of section 22 of Specific Relief Act, which empowers the Court, that even if specific prayer is not there for refund, plaint can be got amended and relief can be accorded accordingly. ( 12 ) THE law is well settled; even if there is slightest justiciable cause of action available, the plaint cannot be rejected, issues will have to be tried and relief moulded accordingly. Thus, in the facts of the case, as far as quashing of the plaint is concerned, said relief cannot be accorded, for the simple reason that alternative relief has also been claimed for. Thus, in the facts of the case, as far as quashing of the plaint is concerned, said relief cannot be accorded, for the simple reason that alternative relief has also been claimed for. In this background, authority under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. could not have been exercised, in the facts of the case, and as there has been no failure to exercise jurisdiction and there has been no miscarriage of justice, therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot come to rescue of the revisionists. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY present Civil Revisions fail and are dismissed. Proceedings be decided on its own independent assessment of evidence, keeping in view the law as applicable in the State of U. P. .