Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd - Appellant
Versus
G.V.Mohan - Respondent
CCC.A.No.121/04
Decided On : 09-06-05
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, Mr.Mahmood Ali, Mr.Durga Prasad
“Cause of action” - Meaning of - Expression cause of action does not mean a single or a solitary fact and it is a bundle of facts which plaintiff must prove, if traversed, so as to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by Court - In deciding controversy basing upon cause of action Court shall look into facts mentioned inter alia in plaint without embarking upon enquiry as to correctness or otherwise of said facts - “So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by Judge, the mere fact that case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The purported failure of pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars”.
In this case, pending consideration of application for permission under ULC Act, agreement entered into for sale of suit land - Admittedly both parties applied for exemption and it is pending consideration - Contention that Government rejected application and refused to grant exemption is not born out of plaint averments and therefore becomes extraneous.
Defendants contend that suit agreement is contingent contract as it is conditional upon ground of exemption by Government and that in absence of any such exemption by Government, no specific relief can be granted so as to enforce agreement by directing parties to execute sale deed and get it registered which cannot
be done having been barred by provisions of ULC Act and therefore, till such time exemption granted there can be no valid cause of action for agreement holder to lay suit for specific performance.
By granting relief of specific performance, necessary conveyance deed will not be executed and it is only person against whom decree for specific performance is passed, has to execute sale deed pursuant to
decree and if he fails to execute sale deed on his behalf, Court has to execute sale deed - That stage has not yet reached - Decree for specific performance can be made conditional by granting relief of specific performance directing defendants to execute necessary conveyance deed in event necessary exemption is granted by Government.
Scope of enquiry in application filed under Or.7, R.11 of Code seeking rejection of plaint is indeed limited - Court cannot go beyond four corners of plaint and documents, if any, annexed therewith - Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief for specific performance in terms of G.O issued by Government subsequently and whether eventually plaintiff is entitled to any such relief or not; seem obviously to be extraneous at this juncture for consideration, particularly when matter is at its threshold - Impugned order of trial Court, set aside - Appeal, allowed.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case have been succinctly narrated by my Learned Sister justice 71 Meena Kumari. I have had the advantage of going through both the judgments written by the learned Judges. Having regard to the same, there is no need for me to reiterate the facts in extenso except mentioning the same wherever necessary to elucidate the point in controversy.
( 3 ) IT is expedient to refer the parties, as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid confusion. The plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 118 of 2003 for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 9-12-1980. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing a written statement. Subsequently they filed an interlocutory application in I. A. No. 3665 of 2003 in o. S. No. 118 of 2003 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code ) requesting the Court to reject the plaint. The grounds set forth inter alia therein are two fold - firstly that in the absence of exemption from the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity the ULC act ), the suit is barred by law; and secondly that there is no cause of action to file the suit. That application was resisted by the plaintiff society on the premises that even in the absence of exemption from the government, the suit is not barred by law and that there is cause of action for the society as there is possibility of granting exemption. It is pleaded inter alia in the counter that as per the written statement filed by the defendants an extent of 7064. 16 square meters of site has been exempted and held to be not excessive land subsequent to the agreement, that extent of land being part and parcel of the disputed site, the plaintiff s claim could be maintained to that extent and that it is always open to the court to mould the relief at the end. The specific case of the plaintiff is that all issues in controversy are to be decided at the time of trial. Under the impugned order dated 23-2-2004, the learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, eventually rejected the plaint. Assailing the same, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court. The respondents 3 to 6 have been impleaded in the appeal by means of an order dated 30-4-2004 in CMP No. 9781 of 2004.
( 4 ) SINCE it is not discernible from the judgments of both the Hon ble Judges, the points of divergence whether on fact or law, it is sought to be contended before me adverting to Section 98 of the Code that notwithstanding the fact that no point has been formulated by the Hon ble Judges while rendering divergent orders for referring the same to a third Judge, still the third Judge can hear the matter and decide the case. In this connection, reliance is sought to be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in p. V. Hemalatha v. Kattamkandi Puthiya maliackal Saheeda and another, (2002) 5 SCC 548. There can be no quarrel on the proposition of law sought to be canvassed. In view of the same, the matter is at large before me.
( 5 ) THE plaint in this case has been sought to be rejected under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action and the suit having been barred by any law. It is expedient to notice the relevant provision at the outset, for the purpose of brevity and better understanding of the matter. The provision reads as under :"order-VII - Plaint. Rule 11. Rejection of plaint :-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the value to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
