A court assessing an application under Order VII Rule 11 is confined to the plaint and its documents, not external assertions or documents.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS 412/2021 (Kiran Chander v. Krishan Kakkar).

2. The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejects an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in CS 412/2021, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Towards the conclusion of the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021, the learned ADJ directes the respondent (as the plaintiff in CS 412/2021) to file two documents. The subsequent order dated 6th May, 2022, passed by the learned ADJ, which constitutes the second order under challenge in these proceedings, disposes of an application, filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a direction to the respondent-plaintiff to comply with the order dated 8th July, 2021 "in its true spirit" and, accordingly, to extend the time available with the petitioner to file written statement. The learned ADJ has, vide the second impugned order dated 6th May, 2022, held that the respondent had complied with the directions contained in the first impugned order dated 8th July, 2021 regarding filing of documents, and has extended the time available with the petitioner to file written statement in the suit by a period of four weeks from 6th May, 2022.

3. CS 412/2021 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, alleging that, having purchased 500 sq. ft. of land from the respondent vide sale deed dated 30th July, 2012, and having also executed an agreement to sell dated 14th August, 2012 in respect of an additional 400 sq. ft. of land, the petitioner had paid only part consideration against the said transactions and that the time available with the petitioner to pay the balance consideration had expired. The suit, therefore, sought a decree of possession as well as injunction and mesne profits, in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which stands dismissed by the first impugned order dated 8th July, 2021. Mr. Aman Usman, learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his challenge qua the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021, which rejects the said application, to the findings of the learned ADJ with respect to the plea, advanced by the petitioner, predicated on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The other allegations, raised in the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 have been given up by Mr. Usman in Court.

5. The submissions in the application under Order VII Rule 11, dealing with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, read thus:

"11. UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) ON ACCOUNT OF APPARENT BAR OF A LAW: That on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the submission of the Plaintiff emerges that:

• the Plaintiff contracted to transfer for consideration (Rs.1.01 Crore herein) the immovable property (Suit property herein) by writing signed by her (by way of the "Said Agreement" dated 14.08.2012 herein);
• the Defendant, in part perfonnance of the contract (the "Said Agreement" herein), took possession of the property (Suit Property herein);
• the Defendant has done some act in furtherance of the contract (by making several payments to the Plaintiff spanning over eight years of the tenure of the "Said Agreement" dated 14.08.2012)

That on the basis of the above, it appears that the present Suit is barred by