The main legal point established is that the rejection of a plaint should only occur if the entire plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and disputed questions cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application for rejection of the plaint.

1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to asA Plaintiff) against the order dated 19th July 2007 passed in I.A. No. 7904/2006 in CS(OS) No.558/2006 allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action.

2. The case of the Plaintiff in the trial court was that the Plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19th December 2004 in respect of HIG/Ground Floor Flat No.1, Akash Kunj Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

3. The sale consideration of Rs. 27,75,000/- was agreed between the parties for the suit property.

4. The Plaintiff paid Rs.4 lac to the Defendant No.1 as earnest money, Rs.2 lac by cash and Rs.2 lac vide cheque bearing No. 458943 dated 19th December 2004 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ashok Vihar Branch, Delhi favouring Mr. Deepak Bansal against

receipt-cum-agreement which is dated 19th December 2004 and filed on the trial court record.

5. It was stated in the plaint that the Defendants informed the husband of the Plaintiff that the property was mortgaged with ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd and requested the Plaintiff to take loan from the same very bank so that the mortgaged amount can be adjusted and title deeds can be obtained from the bank directly by the Plaintiff in order to save the commission money.

6. The Plaintiff applied for a loan in the said Bank on 26th December 2004 which was sanctioned for Rs. 7,36,000/- on 7th January 2005 in favour of the Plaintiff and the sale deed between the parties was to be executed by 20th January 2005.

7. The Plaintiff on 10th January 2005 purchased the stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1,23,000/- which was the agreed price of the suit property.

8. It is averred in the plaint that the Defendants were insisting for some amount before execution of the sale deed so on 12th January 2005 two cheques i.e cheque bearing No.458946 dated 12th January 2005 for Rs. 11,25,000/- and cheque bearing No.458947 dated 12th January 2005 for Rs. 2,50,000/- both drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ashok Vihar, Delhi were given to Defendant No.1 being the part payment against the total sale consideration of Rs.27,75,000/-. The Plaintiff also requested the Defendants to give the necessary consent letter to ICICI Home Finance Co.Ltd for facilitating the transfer of the original title deed documents. Defendants were also requested to execute the necessary agreement to sell as required by the aforesaid bank but the Defendants did not do the needful and attempted to avoid the same inspite of the assurance given by the Defendants that the Defendants would clear the loan taken by them against the suit property.

9. The case of the Plaintiff is that in view of the above the Plaintiff became apprehensive about the conduct of the Defendants as is evident from the fact that even after adjusting the amount of Rs. 7, 36,000/- taken by the Plaintiff from the bank as advised by the Defendants, still an amount of Rs.13,14,000/- was payable by the Defendants to the bank because the loan amount due from the Defendants was Rs. 20,50,000/-. The Plaintiff left with no option sent a registered letter dated 14th January 2005 to the Defendants to do the needful. The husband of the Plaintiff called the Defendant No.1 on 15th January 2005 in order to remind the Defendants of their obligation but the Defendants did not cooperate. The Plaintiff also wrote a letter dated 15th January 2005 to ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd informing that all the requirements of the bank had been intimated to the Defendants and they were requested to clear the entire loan amount so that the deal can be completed within time and the bank was also requested to disburse the loan amount sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff. 10. On 20th January 2005 the Plaintiff als