Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendant nos.5 to 8, filed a Civil Revision Application challenging the order dated 16/09/2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Khamgaon in Special Civil Suit No.37/2015, rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioners contended that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract alleging that defendant nos.5 to 8 had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. However, the petitioners argued that they owned the suit property and had never agreed to sell it to the plaintiff, thus there was no privity of contract between them. They claimed that they were not necessary or proper parties and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against them, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The plaintiff resisted the application, asserting that defendant nos.5 to 8 had previously entered into an agreement with defendant no.3 Dinesh Mundada, who then executed a written agreement of sale in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the question of privity of contract is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action against the petitioners and that they are necessary and proper parties for the effective adjudication of the suit. The court emphasized that the merits of the case, including the existence of an agreement, are to be decided during trial. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court held that the question of whether there is privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants, and the application for rejection was rightly rejected. (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure Code - Necessary and Proper Party - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The court held that the defendants are necessary and proper parties as the suit is for specific performance of contract and the defendants are alleged to have agreed to sell the property. Their presence is required for effective adjudication. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, and whether the defendants are not necessary or proper parties to the suit.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The order dated 16/09/2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Khamgaon in Special Civil Suit No.37/2015 below Exh.21 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of plaint
- Cause of action
- Privity of contract
- Necessary party
- Proper party
