Civil courts retain jurisdiction for developer's suit declaring agreement rescission and mortgage non-binding, as such reliefs fall outside DRT's recovery jurisdiction under RDB Act; no partial plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. All these Revision Applications are directed against identical orders dated 15^th June 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, whereby the Applications preferred by the Applicant-Defendant No.2, purportedly seeking the framing and trial of issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction, came to be rejected.

2. Since identical questions of facts and law arise, these Revision Applications were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts in Revision Application No. 580 of 2024, assailing the order in SCS No. 57 of 2007, are noted as a representative case. The background facts can be summarised as under:

3.1 Late Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar, the predecessor-in-tile of Plaintiff Nos. 1A and 1B, initially instituted a suit against Respondent No.1- Defendant No.1 only, seeking declarative reliefs, in the context of a transaction of sale of a developed plot. The Plaintiff claimed that she had developed a project, “Dwarka Bungalow Scheme” at Survey No. 117, Hissa Nos. 1 and 2, Village Taloja Majkur, Taluka: Panvel, District: Raigad.

3.2 Defendant No.1 had evinced interest in purchasing a Bungalow Plot. Post negotiations, Defendant No.1 agreed to purchase Plot No. 86 admeasuring 160 sq mtr (“the suit plot”). An Agreement for Sale came to be executed on 7^th January 2005 by and between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, under the terms whereof the consideration was settled at Rs.17,60,000/-. In addition, Defendant No.1 had agreed to pay 20% of the total consideration to the Plaintiff at the time of delivery of possession of the suit plot, towards charges for development for the amenities. In the event of default in payment of the amounts as agreed, Defendant No.1 has agreed to pay interest @ 24% per annum.

3.3 The Plaintiff claims, at the time of the execution of the Agreement for Sale, Defendant No.1 had drawn a cheque of Rs.3,52,000/- towards earnest money/booking amount. Though Defendant No.1 paid the amount of Rs.14,08,000/- towards the balance consideration yet the said cheque drawn towards the first installment was dishonoured upon presentment. Defendant No.1 also committed default in payment of 20% of the amount, i.e., Rs.3,52,000/- towards the development charges. The Plaintiff repeatedly called upon Defendant No.1 to pay the outstanding amount.

3.4 In view of the persistent default, a legal notice was addressed on 16^th October 2006 calling upon Defendant No.1 to pay due amount of Rs.10,20,800/-. As Defendant No.1 did not comply with the said notice, vide notice dated 28^th November 2006, the Plaintiff terminated the Agreement for Sale dated 7^th January 2005, and, thereby, forfeited the earnest money and offered to refund the balance amount after deducting the expenses incurred towards the stamp duty and registration charges, after the sale of the said plot to another purchaser. 3.5 Thus, initially, the Plaintiff prayed for declarations that the Agreement for Sale dated 7^th January 2005 between the Plaintiff and Defendant stood