JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-original defendants challenging the common order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast-Track), Chittorgarh, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), in Civil Suit No. 2/2006, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 151 and under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 (original-defendant No. 3), to the effect that the petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court in two separate applications would not be maintainable. Though there is some substance in the said objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the petition is being decided on merits without going into the technicalities on the maintainability. 3. It appears that the present respondent No. 2-original-plaintiff, has filed the suit seeking various reliefs like for specific performance of an agreement, dated 3.9.2001, for recovery of damages, for permanent injunction etc. alleging inter alia that he was the tenant of the shop which belonged to the grand father of the present petitioners. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the defendants had executed an agreement dated 3.9.2001, making a proposal that if the plaintiff handed over possession of the said shop, the defendants would raise new complex and would hand-over one shop in the new complex as and when constructed. Accordingly, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the said shop, however, the defendants did not hand-over the possession of the shop in the new complex and, therefore, the plaintiff suffered financial loss. It has also been alleged by the plaintiff that the said defendants had sold out the said shop to defendant No. 3, and therefore, the plaintiff had filed the said suit. It appears that the said suit has been resisted by the defendants including the present petitioners and the trial Court from the pleadings of the parties has also framed the issues, and started with the recording of evidence. It further appears that at the said stage, the present petitioners submitted an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. contending inter alia that the agreement dated 3.9.2001, being an unregistered document and insufficiently stamped, the same should not be received in evidence. It further appears that at the said stage, the present petitioners submitted an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. contending inter alia that the agreement dated 3.9.2001, being an unregistered document and insufficiently stamped, the same should not be received in evidence. The petitioners also made another application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., praying to the effect that the plaintiff had not paid the sufficient Court fees as per the reliefs claimed in the suit. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2006, dismissed both the applications. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Abhinav Jain for the petitioners that in the title of the suit, the plaintiff had not stated correct narrations of the reliefs in as much as there was no mention about the cancellation of the sale deed in the title, which has been prayed for in the relief clause. According to him the plaintiff, having not paid the requisite Court fees, his suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 17(f) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, the learned counsel submitted that the agreement dated 3.9.2001, allegedly executed by the concerned defendants in favour of the plaintiff having not been registered, the same could not be received in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the said applications of the petitioners. None appears for the respondent No. 2 original plaintiff, though duly served. Learned counsel Mr. Sarpuria, for the respondent No. 3, has supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. At the outset, it is required to be stated that as transpiring from the averments made in the petition itself, the trial Court has already framed the issues from the pleadings of the parties and proceeded further with the recording of evidence in the suit. Hence the application of the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 , which otherwise is required to be filed at the earliest stage by the defendants was not maintainable. Hence the application of the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 , which otherwise is required to be filed at the earliest stage by the defendants was not maintainable. Even otherwise, from the bare reading of Order 7, Rule 11 (b), it clearly transpires that the plaint could be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued, 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. In the instant case, admittedly no such direction has been given by the trial Court to the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the Court fees accordingly, and, therefore, there was no question of rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) as prayed for by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, it is required to be held that the very' application of the petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. before the trial Court was not maintainable in the eye of law. However, it is observed that whether the plaintiff has paid sufficient Court fees or not, will be a matter of evidence, which could be decided by the trial Court while deciding the sail itself. Of course, the trial Court while dismissing the application of the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 has observed that the plaintiff had paid sufficient Court fees, however, such findings of the trial Court would be tentative findings and it would be open for the petitioners to raise the issue of insufficient Court .fee, if permissible to be raised at a later stage on the basis of the evidence that might be on record. 6. So far as the other application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C. is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly, relying upon the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act held that the agreement in question, though required registration and not registered, would still be admissible in evidence in the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. 7. In view of the above, there being no merits in the present petition- the same reserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******