The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint cannot be done in a piecemeal manner and must be rejected as a whole. The subsequent events of abatement/dismissal of the suit in Saket Court were not considered for the purposes of rejection of the plaint in the present suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - I.A. 15648/2014(of the defendant no.5 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the defendant no.5 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.

2. Summons in the suit were issued on 21st April, 2014 to the defendants no.1 to 4 and they were restrained from alienating, encumbering, dealing in any manner whatsoever and parting with possession of property bearing no. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') or any part thereof.

3. Subsequently, the present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, was filed on behalf of the defendant no.5. Notice in the application was issued on 22nd August, 2014. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiff. Written submissions along with the judgments in support thereof have also been filed by the parties. Counsels for the parties were heard at length on 18th October, 2022, 27th October, 2022 and 3rd November, 2022 and the judgement was reserved.

PLEADINGS

4. The pleadings in the plaint relevant for deciding of the present application are set out below:

(i) Late Shri Surinder Kumar Sardana (Shri S.K. Sardana), the brother of the defendants no.1 to 4, was the owner of the suit property. Late Shri S.K. Sardana expired intestate on 5th April, 2011 and he was survived by the defendants no. 1 to 4, being his class II legal heirs.

(ii) In January, 2012, the plaintiff, and the defendant no.1 for himself and on behalf of the defendants no.2 to 4, entered into negotiations regarding the sale of the suit property. It was represented by the defendant no.1 that late Shri S.K. Sardana had appointed the defendant no.1 as his nominee in respect of the suit property and his name has also been substituted in the record of the society, which has also issued a 'No-Objection Certificate' dated 24th September, 2011 for mutation of the suit property in the name of the defendant no.1. It was also represented that the defendants no.2 to 4 have also given their 'No-Objection Certificates' for conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold.

(iii) Consequently, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for himself and as the power of attorney holder of the defendants no.2 to 4, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 18th January, 2012 for purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.19,00,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the MOU, the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants no.1 to 4 in cash.

(iv) Thereafter, an agreement to sell dated 11th April, 2012 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for himself and as the power of attorney holder of the defendants no. 2 and 3, for their 3/4th share in the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.14,75,00,000/-. The defendant no.4 did not sign the agreement to sell.

(v) The plaintiff at the time of signing the agreement to sell had paid Rs.60,00,000/- as earnest money vide three cheques dated 11th April, 2012. All the aforesaid three cheques were encashed by the defendants. Subsequently, upon the request of the defendant no.1, a further sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid to wife of the defendant no.1, thereby a total sum of Rs.70,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants no.1 to 4.

(vi) In May, 2012, the defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff that Smt. Sangeeta Bhambani, the daughter of the pre-deceased sister of the defendants no.1 to 4 had filed a suit for partition, being CS(OS) 350/2012 against the defendants no.1 to 4 in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, this Court vide order dated 30th April, 2012 had restrained the defendant no.1 from disposing of, selling, mortgaging, parting with possession or in any way transferring the suit property. The plaintiff was further informed that the defendants would honour the agreement to sell dated 11th April, 2012 as and when the stay on the