Gita Mittal, J:

1. What is not the pleaded, cannot be proved, what is admitted need not be proved. It is this fundamental principle which binds every court. It is this very principle which shall be violated if the present appeal is accepted.

2. On the 28th of July, 2009, the appellant had filed CS(OS)No.1397/2009 against the respondent. For the purpose of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant in the present judgment. Besides the residual prayer, the plaintiff sought the following prayers:

“a) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to execute the sale deed and/or all necessary documents for transferring the flat no.7430, Sector B10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 in favour of the plaintiff.

b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of the flat no.7430, Sector-B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070 from the plaintiff, or to do any act that may hinder a peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the said flat by the plaintiff”

3. The defendant filed a written statement and the matter was listed on the 29th of August, 2013 for framing of issues. The following issues were framed by the court:

“(i) Whether the plaint in the present suit discloses any cause of action? OPD.

(ii) Whether a concluded and binding Agreement to Sell took place between the parties? OPP.

(iii) Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

(iv) If answer to the second issue is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement to Sell? OPP.

(v) Relief.”

The defendant made a request that issue no.1 be treated as a preliminary issue on the ground that the reading of the averments in the plaint in their entirety would show that no concluded agreement to sell has been arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, by the same order, issue no.1 was directed to be treated as preliminary issue.

4. The arguments on the preliminary issue no.1 were heard on the 28th of March, 2014 and judgment came to be passed on the 1st of July, 2014 whereby the issue no.1 was decided in favour of the defendant/respondent and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with costs resulting in the present appeal.

5. A bare reading of the prayer clause would show that the appellant has cleverly evaded mentioning the dates or particulars of any agreement by the defendant/respondent in his favour and carefully desisted from seeking the specific performance of a particular agreement to sell.

6. Before proceeding any further, let us firstly examine the scope of consideration by the court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Scope of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

7. While construing the plaint from the perspective of its rejection for want of cause of action or its being barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that the court should not pick out averments in the plaint in isolation but has to conduct its meaningful reading. In this regard, reference may be made to (1977) 4 SCC 467 T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. wherein it was held that:

“5. ...The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation ca