A suit for specific performance requires a valid written agreement, and claims must be filed within the limitation period; failure to meet these conditions results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs-appellants herein under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by learned Chamber Judge & Additional City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad below Exh.1 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code. By the said order, the learned Civil Judge has suo moto taken cognizance of the maintainability of the suit and after conducting preliminary hearing, has rejected the plaint.

2. The facts, in nutshell, are reproduced hereunder:

2.1 The original plaintiffs have approached the court of learned Additional City Civil Judge by seeking prayer for specific performance and Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred as “MoU”) dated 16.11.2019 executed between the parties in respect of land being sub-plot no.4 and 4(a) admeasuring 5296 sq. mtr. i.e. 6335 sq. yards of revenue survey no.142 of Mouje-Maninagar, Taluka-Rajpur Hirpur, District-Ahmedabad being part of final plot no.25 admeasuring 22762 sq. mtrs of T.P. Scheme No.9.

2.1(a) The original plaintiffs have sought for direction against the defendants for execution of registered sale deed in respect of aforesaid suit land by remarking the aforesaid part of land by obtaining title clearance certificate and by accepting the sale consideration as agreed between the original plaintiffs and defendants in terms of the MoU.

2.1(b) The original plaintiffs have also sought for further directions against the defendants in case, if the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the Court Commissioner be appointed for execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the original plaintiffs.

2.1(c) Apart from the aforesaid directions, the original plaintiffs have also sought for permanent injunction against the defendants as well as against any person, servant, agent, power of attorney holder etc. by restraining them from executing any sale transaction or by way of transfer or assign in any manner the suit property as well as to restrain from entering into any type of agreements or documents or any type of transactions in respect of the suit property.

2.2 The aforesaid suit was presented before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 06.03.2024, which came to be registered as Civil Suit No.240 of 2024. Along with the plaint of the aforesaid suit, the original plaintiffs have also produced list of the documents; however, for the reasons best known, no application seeking interim injunction was presented along with the plaint.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to reproduce in nutshell the facts as pleaded by the original plaintiffs in the plaint.

3.1 The defendant no.1 is a registered company having its registered office at Ahmedabad. Defendant nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the defendant no.1-company. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had agreed to purchase the suit land for consideration of total amount of Rs.12,67,00,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the parties have mutually agreed to fix the value of the suit property as Rs.20,000/- per sq. yard. An amount of Rs.21 Lakhs is claimed to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants as token payment. Subsequently, the aforesaid agreement was reduced in form of MoU, which was executed between the parties on 16.11.2019. The said document was notarized, which was entered in the book of Notary-Girish S. Parmar vide entry no.74/2019. The said document was signed by the defendant nos.2 and 3 as the authorize signatory of defendant no.1-company.

3.2 According to the plaintiffs, the main conditions as mutually agreed between the parties, were reduced in writing in the form of MoU.

3.3 The public notice was immediately issued by the plaintiffs on 18.11.2019 inviting objections against the issuance of title clearance certificate. The plaintiffs had contended that expenses were incurred for not only publishing the afores