JUDGMENT :

(Goutam Bhaduri, J.) :

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 31-7-2023 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg, in civil suit No.26-A/2023, wherein in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) the suit is dismissed for want of cause of action.

2. (i) The facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, are that a suit for specific performance along with declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the respondents/defendants. The plaintiff averred that in respect of the property held by the defendants i.e. 15 acres of land situated at village Kumhari, Tahsil Damdha, District Durg, the defendant No.3 namely; Navneet Gupta on behalf of his parents namely; Chandra Gupta & Neelam Gupta, who are arrayed as defendants No.1 & 2, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.3 made an offer before the plaintiff company that the defendants are owner of 15 acres of land and having heard about their goodwill they want to develop the said land by way of a joint venture agreement by carving plot, garden, parking, temple, etc. The plaintiff averred that they are in the business of such development of land and consequent thereto on 22-10-2022 an agreement was executed wherein 15.08 acres of land was agreed to be developed by further proceeding to joint venture agreement.

(ii) As per the plaint averments, on 23-10-2022 possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff company and thereafter the plaintiff started its work for development of the said land. The plaintiff further stated that an amount of 51.00 lacs was transferred to the account of defendant No.3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were obliged to enter into joint venture agreement and were further obliged to transfer the land to create a partnership firm. As per the partnership the plaintiff company would hold the share of 45.5% and the defendants would hold the share of 54.5%. According to the plaintiff, to create joint venture agreement was the main intention whereby the defendants were ensured to develop the land through the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that after scrutiny of the land certain discrepancies were found in respect of the land, therefore, defendant No.3 was asked to rectify such defect in the title and the notices were served on 2-12-2022 and further reminder was sent in the month of December, 2022.

(iii) Plaintiff also averred that the notice was published whereby the general public at large were apprised of the fact that people should not enter into further transaction in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff also averred that they had the money of Rs. 5.00 crores which was to be paid and they were capable to pay the amount and were ready and willing to execute their part of contract. The plaintiff contended that the defendants No.1 to 3 without replying to such notices served them a notice dated 9-2-2023 whereby the contract was rescinded. The plaintiff stated that it has paid an amount of Rs. 51.00 lacs to the defendants and thereby the defendants were obliged to enter into the partnership firm which would have been floated and consideration of Rs. 5.00 crores would have been paid at the time of agreement, but the same was not executed. The suit was, therefore, filed for specific performance of the contract valued at Rs. 5,51,00,000/-.

3. Written statement in this case was filed by the defendants, which was signed by the defendant No.3 alone. Apart from this, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the defendants have returned the amount of Rs. 51.00 lacs wherein it was submitted that the agreement was to be executed within a period of 45 days and having not been done at the behest of the plaintiff, the defendants returned the amount of Rs. 55.00 lacs, therefore, no cause of action survives. Reply