The correctness of the averments in the plaint is not to be weighed at the stage of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

CM-10243-CII of 2020

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, as well as arguments addressed, Annexures P5 and P6 are taken on record subject to just exceptions. Exemption from filing the certified copies thereof is granted.

3. Application is disposed of.

CR No.2551 of 2020

4. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1 before the learned trial court) for setting aside order dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction with the averments that the present petitioner (defendant No.1) had claimed to be the allottee of land as described in the plaint, regarding which litigation was stated to be pending before the court of District Judge, Narnaul. He claimed to be the sole legal heir of Chanchali Bai wife of late Shri Tikam Dass. Defendant No.1 represented that due to old age, he was not able to manage the litigation. An agreement to sell dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P5) was executed by the present petitioner in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was received as earnest money. Subsequently, another agreement dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P6) was executed between the present petitioner and the respondents in this revision petition. The consideration amount was increased to a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. The petitioner received a total sum of Rs.29,00,000/-. It is pleaded that the present petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, suit for specific performance was filed.

6. Present petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint while stating that the suit had been filed with an ulterior motive and that the petitioner, in fact, is not owner of the land in question. It is specifically pleaded by him that the agreement to sell was somehow executed with the plaintiffs as they exerted influence upon him. Furthermore, the plaintiffs/respondents had failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the agreements. Therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected.

7. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 09.10.2020 dismissed the petitioner's application. Aggrieved therefrom, the present revision petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that perusal of the plaint does not reveal cause of action, therefore, petitioner's application for rejection of plaint, has been wrongly dismissed by the learned trial court. It is contended that once the petitioner was not even owner of the land in question, therefore, it cannot be said that any cause of action arises to the plaintiffs to file the suit for specific performance. It is argued that the sale-deed, as per the agreements, could be executed only when the property in fact stood allotted to Chanchali Bai and then transferred in the name of present petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is, in fact, the owner of the land. Thus cause of action to file the suit for specific performance, it is submitted, did not arise as allotment was never made to Chanchali Bai/petitioner. Moreover, as per the agreement in question, respondents were to pay the remaining sale-consideration of Rs.61,00,000/- upto April, 2020. Learned counsel argues that viewing from any angle the petitioner's application for rejection of plaint has been wrongly dismissed. It is thus prayed that the present revision petition be allowed.

9. At this stage, though notice of motion had not been issued, Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. He pointed out that the