The court emphasizes that partial rejection of a plaint is impermissible under CPC when at least one claim remains viable, necessitating remand for proper evaluation of facts and evidence.

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 09/10/2024 passed by the District Judge – 1, Vadgaon, Maval, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2024 confirming order dated 10/01/2024 passed below Exh. 14 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadgaon, Maval, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1162 of 2022 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”).

3. By an order dated 28/01/2025, following substantial questions of law were framed and notice for final disposal was issued :

(i) Whether both the Courts erred in not considering the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff which was common for the prayer of specific performance and alternative relief of refund of earnest money and compensation?

(II) Whether both the Courts erred in rejecting the Plaint on the point of limitation by ignoring the cause of action and the alternative prayers made by the Plaintiff?

(III) Whether in view of the legal principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited [(2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780], the reasons recorded by both the Courts to reject the Plaint on the ground of limitation would be sustainable in law?

(IV) Whether the first Appellate Court ought to have considered remanding the suit to the trial Court for deciding the suit on merits, in view of the specific cause of action and the alternative prayers made by the Plaintiff?

4. The Respondents have appeared. The Appeal is admitted on above substantial questions of law. Learned counsel for the parties are heard finally by consent. Taken up for final hearing.

5. Few facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as under.

5.1. The Appellants filed the said Suit for specific performance of the suit agreement dated 12/06/2015 which is a registered document. Apart from prayer of specific performance, the Appellants also claimed possession of the suit property and damages as per Clause 15 of the Plaint. The prayer in the alternative is for refund of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest, damages of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and recovery of expenses for construction of compound, as mentioned in Clause 16 of the Plaint. The cause of action pleaded is suit notice dated 29/12/2021 demanding execution of sale deed alongwith refund of amount paid under agreement and compensation (Through in the Plaint, date of notice is mentioned as 29/12/2021, the document produced is notice dated 18/12/2021; month and year of notice is same). The notice reply dated 18/01/2022 is also stated to be the cause of action.

5.2 In the body of the Plaint from paragraph nos. 9 to 11, it is pleaded that under notice dated 02/08/2016 and public notice dated 03/08/2016 the Respondents had sought to cancel the suit agreement and the Power of Attorney (POA), after which the Appellants met Respondents and requested for completing the transaction. It is pleaded that at the relevant time, the Respondents informed the Appellants that partition was to take place in the family and therefore after the partition is complete, the sale deed will be executed. It is pleaded that the Respondents requested to wait for that reason. It is further pleaded that after the Appellants were convinced that the partition is not taking place in the family of the Respondents, suit notice was sent, which was replied.

5.3 It is also pleaded that the Respondents were not ref