2023 (4) TMI 908 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of plaint - claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2009 - whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint, despite showing that the property shown in the sale agreement and the properties listed out in the plaint are one and the same or different, is a matter for trial? HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge himself has given a finding against the defendants with respect to the limitation plea. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the points 2 and 4 are matter for trial and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be considered as grounds for rejection of plaint. As regards the contention of the defendants that though the sale agreement was entered into between the parties with respect to one item of the property, the plaintiff has filed the suit with respect to five items of properties and as such, he has no cause of action. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendants, in the suit sale agreement, parties have mentioned one item of suit property. But in the plaint, the plaintiff has listed out five items of properties running four pages. As already pointed out, the defendants have filed an elaborate written statement running to 27 pages, but it is settled law that the averments raised in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone are to be considered, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. - Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S. DEEKSHIT ANR VERSUS M/S. METROPOLI OVERSEAS LIMITED ORS 2022 (8) TMI 1365 - SUPREME COURT , has specifically held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the averments in the plaint alone are to be examined and no other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. It is the specific defence of the defendants that the properties are not one and the same and the plaintiff has included some other properties which are not belonging to the defendants 1 to 5. As already pointed out, the defence pleaded in the written statement cannot be considered at this point of time. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, whether the property shown in the suit sale agreement and the present suit properties are one and the same or different properties can be gone into only at the trial. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure elaborates on the rejection of the plaints in certain circumstances. It has mentioned certain grounds on the basis of which, the plaints are rejected by the Courts. One of them is not mentioning the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks against the defendant. Cause of action is a set of allegations or facts that make up the basis of filing a civil suit in Court. A plaint can very well be rejected by the Court, if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The cause of action has been mentioned in various places in C.P.C. Without a cause of action, a civil suit cannot arise. The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that led the plaintiffs to take such action. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Judge, without considering the plaint pleadings and the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., in proper perspective, has rejected the plaint mechanically. Hence, this Court concludes that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the trial Court is to be directed to proceed with the trial. Since the suit was filed in the year 2013, this Court is of the further view that the trial Court is to be directed to complete the trial within the time stipulated by this Court. The Appeal Suit is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- Specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2009
- Allegations of postponing the sale by defendants
- Dispute over properties listed in the plaint
- Grounds for rejection of the plaint raised by defendants
- Examination of plaint averments under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
- Cause of action and rejection of plaint
- Trial court's rejection of the plaint

Analysis:

The judgment concerns an Appeal Suit against the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, related to a claim for specific performance of an agreement. The appellant filed the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 30.12.2009, which was rejected by the trial court based on an application filed by the defendants. The defendants raised grounds for rejection, including the mismatch between the properties listed in the plaint and the sale agreement, non-compliance with sale agreement terms, and alleged delay in performance.

The main issue revolved around whether the properties listed in the plaint matched those in the sale agreement, with the defendants arguing that the properties were different. However, the court emphasized that only the plaint averments and attached documents should be considered under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The court highlighted that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint mechanically without proper consideration of the pleadings and scope of the rule. The cause of action, a crucial element in a civil suit, was discussed, emphasizing that the absence of a cause of action could lead to rejection.

The judgment emphasized that rejection of a plaint should not be piecemeal and must be based on valid grounds. The trial court's finding of lack of honesty in the plaintiff's conduct was deemed insufficient for rejection. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was flawed, setting it aside and directing the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously. The judgment highlighted the need for a fair trial and directed the trial court to complete the proceedings within a stipulated time frame.