Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two civil revision applications filed against an order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 30th April 2014, which dismissed the defendants' applications under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The plaintiffs, M/s Kanoria Brothers and others, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction against the defendants, including Urmi Developers Private Limited and others. The defendants sought to strike out certain paragraphs from the plaint alleging that the plaintiffs had no title or possession and that the suit was barred by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial court refused, holding that the issues were triable. The High Court, in revision, upheld the trial court's order, reasoning that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be decided summarily under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC, and that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, thus not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court also noted that the question of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a matter of evidence. Both revision applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 16 - Striking out pleadings - Disputed questions of title and possession cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC - The court held that the allegations in the plaint regarding title and possession are triable issues and cannot be struck out at the threshold - Held that the trial court correctly refused to strike out paragraphs as they raised bona fide disputes requiring evidence (Paras 10-15). B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action - The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for specific performance and injunction, and the bar under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not apply at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 - Held that the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint (Paras 16-20). C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and willingness - The court held that the question of readiness and willingness is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of Order 6 Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule 11 - Held that the trial court correctly left the issue for trial (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to strike out certain paragraphs from the plaint under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision
Both civil revision applications are dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 30th April 2014 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 16 CPC
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
