The court ruled that a cause of action constitutes a bundle of facts which, if proven, entitles a party to maintain an action and that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must not consider the defendant's arguments.

OR

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The defendants in the suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 28.12.2024 in I.A.No.800 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam.

2. For brevity, the parties to the judgment are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2020 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23.06.2016. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement. Pending the suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.800 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint.The I.A. was dismissed on 28.12.2024.

4. Since the defendants filed I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, let this Court examine the relevant pleadings in the plaint.

-

5. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia, that the defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff in 2016; that in the negotiations, the rate was fixed @ Rs.10,00,000/- per cent; that on 23.06.2016, the defendants jointly executed an agreement of sale, after receiving Rs.20,00,000/- as advance sale consideration; that the suit property along with remaining extent was given on lease to Bharat Petroleum Corporation by the grand-father of defendants by name Bharatam Adinarayana; that the plaintiff has been running petroleum business in the said property as an authorized dealer; that the lease period was ended in 2017; that the other shares in the property already sold to the plaintiff and hence, the defendants agreed to sell their share; that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed as agreed, after receiving the balance amount, by expressing his readiness and willingness and further informed the defendants that the suit schedule property is under his possession and if they execute sale deed, he will continue; that the defendants informed and assured that they will execute registered sale deed in terms of agreement sale deed after lapse of lease period only, till then they will not execute sale deed, in violation of terms of agreement while admitting their liability; that the plaintiff repeatedly demanded the defendants; that the plaintiff came to know in the 2^nd week of December, 2019 that the defendants with a malafied intention to get unlawful gain, by suppressing the suit agreement of sale, making efforts to alienate the property to third parties and hence, the suit was filed seeking specific performance.

6. As noted supra, the defendants filed I.A., to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter-alia, that as per the conditions recited in the agreement of sale that the execution of the registered sale deed is after expiry of the lease period and delivery of the property, and upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff created an unreal, illusory and untrue cause of action and filed the suit. The discrepancy in the pleadings vis-à-vis expiry of the lease period and the payment made by the plaintiff, while continuing with the possession of the property, violates the terms of the agreement. The pleadings are vague. No notice was issued before the filing of the suit. The pleadings in the plaint did not explain the alleged plea of the property of BPCL. The plaintiff pleaded possession; however, sought relief, delivery of possession and alternative relief of refund and thus, prayed to reject the