Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil revision applications filed by the defendants (J.P. Realities Pvt. Ltd. and its director Jaiprakash Khushalani, along with other defendants) against the order of the trial court dated 28.11.2022, which rejected their application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to strike out certain paragraphs from the plaint. The plaintiffs, Mahesh Kingrani and Rajesh Kingrani, had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.06.2017, alleging that the defendants agreed to sell a property for Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and that the plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the suit was an abuse of the process of the court. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the question of readiness and willingness involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided at the stage of striking out pleadings. The High Court, in its judgment dated 19.03.2024, dismissed both revision applications, affirming the trial court's order. The court held that the issue of readiness and willingness is a mixed question of law and fact that requires trial, and that the defendants' allegations of abuse of process were not established. The court also noted that the defendants had already filed their written statement and the matter was at the stage of framing of issues. The revision applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order VI Rule 16 CPC - Disputed Questions of Fact - The court held that the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform the contract involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided at the stage of striking out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. The trial court's refusal to strike out the pleadings was upheld as the matter required trial. (Paras 10-12) B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court noted that the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined after evidence. The defendants' contention that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing could not be summarily decided without trial. (Paras 10-12) C) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Order VI Rule 16 CPC - The court held that the mere filing of a suit for specific performance does not constitute an abuse of process of court. The defendants' allegations of abuse of process were not established at the stage of striking out pleadings. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to strike out the plaintiffs' pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the suit was an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision
Both civil revision applications are dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 28.11.2022 rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC
- striking out pleadings
- specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- disputed questions of fact
- abuse of process of court
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
