Bombay High Court Dismisses Commercial Suit for Specific Performance Due to Non-Disclosure of Cause of Action and Lack of Readiness and Willingness. Plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement and did not disclose a valid cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Miloni Shah, filed a Commercial Suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15th March 2019, allegedly entered into with the defendants for the purchase of a flat. The plaintiff claimed that she paid a total of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as part consideration and was ready to pay the balance. The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, the agreement was not signed by defendant No.2, and the plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness. The court examined the pleadings and found that the plaintiff did not specifically plead readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court also noted that the agreement was not signed by defendant No.2, who was the owner of the property, and that the plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected. The notice of motion was allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the date of decree. The court found that the plaintiff failed to make such pleadings and did not demonstrate financial capacity to pay the balance consideration. (Paras 10-12)

B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The court can reject a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff's suit for specific performance was based on an agreement that was not signed by the defendant No.2, and the plaintiff failed to show any binding contract. (Paras 13-15)

C) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation - The plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which is a bar to the maintainability of the suit. (Para 16)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff has disclosed a cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell and whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The notice of motion is allowed. The plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The suit is dismissed with costs.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Cause of action
  • Agreement to sell
  • Commercial suit
  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC
  • Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 62

Commercial Summary Suit No. 55 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 3415 of 2022

2023-09-01

Kamal Khata, J.

2023:BHC-OS:9227

Mr. Bhavin Gada, Nishit Dhriva, Niyati Merchant, Mr. Haresh Sheth i/b. MDP & Partners, for the Plaintiff.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15th March 2019 for a flat, and in the alternative, refund of the amount paid with interest.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff claimed that defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving part consideration.

Issues

Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action for specific performance? Whether the plaintiff has pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract? Whether the suit is maintainable without compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that she paid Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as part consideration and was ready to pay the balance, and that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. Defendants argued that the agreement was not signed by defendant No.2, the owner, and that the plaintiff did not disclose a cause of action, nor did she plead readiness and willingness as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

For a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the date of decree. Failure to do so results in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Additionally, non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 renders the suit not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has not pleaded readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The agreement is not signed by defendant No.2, who is the owner of the property. The plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed Commercial Summary Suit No. 55 of 2022 seeking specific performance. The defendants filed Interim Application No. 3415 of 2022 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court heard the application and passed the judgment on 1st September 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 12A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Multiplier Corrected from 13 to 16 Based on Deceased's Age. The Court recalculated loss of dependency using multiplier 16 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, enhancing total compensatio...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Commercial Suit for Specific Performance Due to Non-Disclosure of Cause of Action and Lack of Readiness and Willingness. Plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement and did not ...