The main legal point established in the judgment is that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court is restricted to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed therewith.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22/12/2015 in I.A.No.186 of 2015 in O.S.No.544 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.186 of 2015 in O.S.No.544 of 2014 on the file of the IV- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, wherein, the learned Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/ defendant seeking to reject the plain under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 C.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.07.2014, under which the petitioner had agreed to sell his house to the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent had agreed to execute a registered sale agreement within 90 days from the date of Memorandum of Understanding.

3. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) for which a receipt has been made on the reverse page of the first sheet of the MOU. The respondent had failed to pay 1/3rd of the total consideration within 90 days as stipulated in the MOU. The respondent had issued a legal notice on 26.09.2014 which was suitably replied to by the petitioner on 29.09.2014 for which the respondent had sent a rejoinder. The dispute between the parties arose on the allegation that the petitioner had not produced any documents for verifying the title deeds, to prepare the sale agreement. The respondent had filed a suit for return of sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also for damages. The suit itself is not maintainable as the MOU is only an arrangement and not a legally valid document which could be enforced in the Court of law. Hence, the petitioner had filed an application to reject the suit.

4. Countering the case of the petitioner, the respondent had claimed that the plaint is for recovery of money paid under the Memorandum of Understanding and not a plaint seeking to enforce the memorandum of understanding. The averments made in the plaint alone have to be taken into consideration and hence, there is no merit in the application and is liable to be rejected.

5. The Court below, after considering the arguments made by both the parties, had rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the issues raised in the application would have to be substantiated by the parties by adducing the oral and documentary evidence and the plain reading of the plaint shows that there exists a cause of action and the suit is not barred by any law.

6. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner had filed the instant revision petition.

7. Heard Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the plaint has been lodged based on a Memorandum of Understanding which is not a registered document. Further, the said Memorandum of Understanding has been entered to execute an agreement of sale and hence, the said Memorandum of Understanding is not a concluded contract to maintain the suit. It was also his case that the Memorandum of Understanding contained a forfeiture clause which would bar the respondent/ plaintiff to seek the return of the advance.

9. The petitioner to substantiate his arguments, has also relied upon the following judgments :-

1. Case law in Nithayya Thevar Vs. Subramanian Ambalakarar reported in 1970 (1) MLJ 400.

2. Case law in H.G. Krishna Reddy and Co. Vs M.M. Thimmiah and another reported in AIR 1983 Mad 169.

3. Case law in National Properties Ltd., Vs Batta India Limited reported in AIR 2001 Cal 177.

4. Case law in M. Gnanasambandam (died) and others Vs. M.Raja Appar and others reported in 2009 (2) CTC 819.