Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application and a Writ Petition filed by M/s J.M. Baxi & Co. (the applicant/petitioner) challenging an order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, which rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The applicant/defendant sought rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The respondents had filed a suit alleging that the applicant agreed to sell certain property to them and that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the applicant failed to execute the sale deed. The applicant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, was barred by limitation, and was barred by res judicata in view of an earlier suit for injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the issues of limitation and res judicata were mixed questions of law and fact that could not be decided at that stage. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present revision and writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Trial Court's order. The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action as it contained averments regarding the agreement, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, and breach by the defendant. Regarding limitation, the court noted that the date of knowledge of the alleged breach was disputed and that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, not suitable for determination under Order 7 Rule 11(d). On res judicata, the court found that the earlier suit was for injunction and not for specific performance, and the causes of action were distinct. Therefore, the court dismissed the revision and writ petition, affirming the Trial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Held that the plaint, which sought specific performance of an agreement to sell, did disclose a cause of action as the plaintiff alleged readiness and willingness to perform and the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed. (Paras 1-14) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation - The court examined whether the suit was barred by limitation. Held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 15-20) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Res Judicata - The court considered whether the suit was barred by res judicata. Held that the earlier suit was for injunction and not for specific performance, and the cause of action in the present suit is different, hence res judicata does not apply. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for not disclosing a cause of action, being barred by limitation, or being barred by res judicata.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and the Writ Petition, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
- Cause of Action
- Limitation
- Res Judicata
- Specific Performance of Contract
