JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri C.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2015 whereby application 51 Ga, under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. The opposite party filed original suit no. 452 of 2011 for injunction for restraining the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Shashi Devi from executing a sale deed of the suit property, being land of khata no. 631 plot no. 1179 area 0.3250 hectares, in favour of the other defendants, on the ground that an agreement to sell had been entered into between the plaintiff and Shanti Devi, term whereof had been extended but no sale deed had been executed despite a sum of Rs. 15 lacks having been advanced by the plaintiff to the opposite party no. 2. 4. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the petitioner alleging that the suit for injunction had been filed relying upon an unregistered agreement to sell. The opposite party no. 2 had executed two separate registered agreements to sell, in favour of the revisionists, each pertaining to half of the plot in suit. A suit for injunction claiming on an unregistered agreement to sell is not maintainable. The plaintiff could have filed a suit for specific performance in case there was a registered agreement to sell in his favour. That is not the position in the case at hand. As an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 5. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in Mohd Ibrahim Alias Munna Vs. Mohd Ahmad reported in 2006 ARC (3) 625 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Mahendra Kumar Mittal and others, AIR 1992 (Allahabad) 35. 6. The judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) was passed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Court Act filed against the judgment and decree in SCC Suit for arrears of rent, eviction and meanse profit. 7. The Division Bench decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) was passed in a First Appeal From Order, directed against an order, refusing to grant interim injunction. 7. The Division Bench decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) was passed in a First Appeal From Order, directed against an order, refusing to grant interim injunction. It is, therefore, clear that in both the cases cited by counsel for the petitioner, the evidence available on record was liable to be considered while passing the orders impugned. 8. The instant revision arises out of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which has been dismissed holding that dismissal of the plaint was sought relying upon submissions which could be decided only after considering the evidence of the parties. Evidence is not liable to be considered when dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11, wherein, only the allegations made in the plaint are to be examined to determine as to whether or not they reveal a cause of action. 9. The trial Court, finding that a cause of action was disclosed by the plaint allegations, has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 holding that the allegations made in this application under Order 7 Rule 11 can be considered and determined, only after taking into considerations the evidence of the parties. 10. In my considered opinion, the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional error, which would justify interference. The order and its reasoning is perfectly sound, in law. 11. The revision is therefore devoid of merits and is dismissed.