Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, who was original defendant No.9 in the suit, filed a Notice of Motion seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The suit was filed by Supreme Mega Constructions LLP, a limited liability partnership, against Symphony Co-operative Housing Society Limited and several individual defendants, including the applicant. The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain flats in the society, or alternatively, damages, and also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party rights. The applicant contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against him and that the suit was barred by limitation. The court examined the plaint averments and found that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action against all defendants, including the applicant, as the applicant was alleged to be a member of the society who had consented to the agreement. Regarding limitation, the court noted that the agreement was dated 28th April 2008 and the suit was filed in 2014, but the plaint alleged that the agreement was still subsisting and the defendants were ready and willing to perform. The court 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. The court also observed that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform is a matter of evidence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the notice of motion, holding that the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court held that for rejection of plaint, only the plaint averments must be considered and if they disclose a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for specific performance and injunction. (Paras 5-10) B) Limitation - Specific Performance - Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court 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 without trial. The plaint alleged that the agreement was still subsisting and the defendant was ready and willing to perform, making the suit within limitation. (Paras 11-15) C) Specific Relief - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court observed that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform is a matter of evidence and cannot be determined at the stage of rejection of plaint. The plaint contained necessary averments of readiness and willingness. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for lack of cause of action or being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion is dismissed. The plaint is not rejected. The court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and the question of limitation cannot be decided at this stage.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Limitation Act
- Cause of action
- Rejection of plaint
- Triable issues
