A plaint must disclose a cause of action; rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC examines only plaint averments, not evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant no.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Order dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby Application filed by the petitioner U/O VII Rule 11 R/W Section 151 CPC , in the Civil Suit no. CS/885/2021 titled "Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary Vs. Prem Kumar etc.", has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad.

2. Brief facts are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff had filed a suit dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant No.1 from transferring the suit property to third party. It was the case of the plaintiff that petitioner had entered into an Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff vide emails dated 17.11.2020 and 20.11.2020. Written statement dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) was filed by the petitioner to the above said suit. Subsequently, petitioner had moved present application dated 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of cause of action. Respondent No.1 had filed reply dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-1), application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Hence, present Civil Revision Petition by the defendant no.1. 

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below was in patent error in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the petitioner had amply demonstrated that no cause of action was made out in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff is claiming ownership over the suit property on the basis of email-Agreement dated 17.11.2020. Learned counsel contends that no valid and lawful communication, proposal, acceptance or an Agreement/contract, either verbal or in writing was entered into between the plaintiff and the petitioner in respect of the suit plot in consonance with the provisions of The Indian Contract Act. It is further submitted that the emails between the petitioner and son of the plaintiff cannot be treated as contract of sale of suit property between the petitioner and the plaintiff. Therefore, no cause of action exists in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Moreover, the respondent no.1 has falsely alleged that a contract for sale of the property was entered into between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner. It is contended that this is borne out from the fact that even the purported Agreement to Sell dated 17.11.2020 has not been produced by the plaintiff. Clearly, therefore, no Agreement to Sell exists between the parties on the basis of which respondent has filed the present suit. As such suit of the respondent/plaintiff was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC . When it is pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be considered, learned counsel submits that even as per the plaint, no cause of action is made out against the petitioner and therefore the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected.

5. It is further submitted that impugned order could not have been passed, as no relief of specific performance has been claimed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel reiterates that the impugned order 29.10.2024 passed by the Id. Civil Judge is bad in law as the respondent no.1 has filed only the Suit for Permanent Injunction without claiming the relief of Specific Performance of Contract. It is argued that it is well settled law that an injunction is an equitable relief and the same cannot be granted in a suit for permanent injunction without seeking the principal relief of Specific Performance of contract. Hence on this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In support, learned counsel relies upon a judgment passe