IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. DESAI, NISHA M. THAKORE, JJ.
BHADRESHKUMAR BIPINCHANDRA SHETH – Appellant
Versus
PRAVINKUVARBA AMARSINH ALIAS PRAFULBA GOPALSINH JADEGA – Respondent
First Appeal No. 4588 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2023
CPC - Civil Procedure - Section 96 - Order VII Rule 11(a) - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT] - [CPC Section 96] - The court discussed the cause of action and the legal position regarding Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. It emphasized the meaning of 'cause of action' and the duty of the trial court to ascertain the material facts for cause of action. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the authority of the original owner and concluded that a frivolous and vexatious suit was filed, leading to the dismissal of the First Appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale regarding a land. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC to reject the plaint, which was accepted by the trial court, leading to the present First Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the authority of the original owner and concluded that a frivolous and vexatious suit was filed, leading to the dismissal of the First Appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court was justified in passing the order of rejection of the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the meaning of 'cause of action' and the duty of the trial court to ascertain the material facts for cause of action. It found that the plaintiff failed to establish the authority of the original owner, leading to the dismissal of the First Appeal.
Final Decision: The First Appeal was dismissed with costs imposed on the plaintiff for filing a frivolous and vexatious suit.
ORDER :
1. By way of present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), the original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 24.08.2022 passed below Exhs.30 and 33 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand in Special Civil Suit No. 10/2022 by which the learned Judge has accepted application Exhs.30 and 33 filed by the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and dismissed the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 10/2022.
2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. P.A. Devmorari appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Amin appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. A.D. Thakore appearing for respondent No. 5.
3. The short facts arising from the record of the case are as follows:
“(a) The defendant no. 2 of this case on behalf of and upon clear instruction as well as consent of defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the old tenure agricultural land admeasuring Hector-00, Are-92, Sq.Mts.-00 i.e. 9200 Sq. Mts. of Account No. 630, Block/Survey No. 1045 paiki of Moje Village: Kunvar of Taluka and Sub- District : Sanand of District Ahmedabad to the plaintiff in Rs.1,12,19,512/- and accepted Rs.5,68,240/- from the plaintiff towards part sale consideration as well as earnest money and also executed one Notarized Agreement for Sale in favour of the Plaintiff on 01/11/2021. Kindly pass an Order and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 that the defendant no. 1 and 2 comply with the said agreement for sale and by accepting remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,06,51,272/- from the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 may be directed to execute Absolute Registered Sale Deed of the said land in favour of the plaintiff and hand over the peaceful, vacant and actual possession of the said land to the plaintiff. Moreover, kindly pass an Order and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 that even after the order of the Hon’ble Court, if the defendant no. 1 fails to execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and handing over peaceful, vacant and actual possession of the said land, the Hon’ble Court may appoint Court Commissioner and got Absolute Registered Sale Deed executed for the said land through the Court Commissioner for and on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and peaceful, vacant and actual possession of the said land be handed over to the plaintiff.
(b) Kindly pass an Order and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the Registered Sale Deed executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 5 regarding the old tenure agricultural land admeasuring Hector-00, Are- 92, Sq.Mts.-00 i.e. 9200 Sq. Mts. of Account No. 630, Block/Survey No. 1045 paiki of Moje Village: Kunvar of Taluka and Sub-District Sanand of District Ahmedabad on 06/12/2021, which is registered at Sr. No. 19827, to be false, illegal, null and void ab initio, only paper transaction and not binding to the plaintiff.
(c) Kindly grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 5 that the defendant no. 4 herein shall not transfer or assign the old tenure agricultural land admeasuring Hector-00, Are-92, Sq.Mts.-00 i.e. 9200 Sq. Mts. of Acco
The duty of the trial court to ascertain the material facts for cause of action and the consequences of filing a frivolous and vexatious suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 CPC is drastic and must be exercised based on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the....
The rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is inappropriate when a cause of action is present, and limitation is a factual matter requiring trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be based on the grounds mentioned under the rule, and the suit should not be barred....
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
(1) Rejection of plaint – For the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, averments made in plaint and accompanying documents have to be only exclusively examined and no evidence can be looked ....
The limitation for specific performance suits begins upon notice of refusal to perform, and the plaint must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a valid cause of action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.