The court determined that a suit for specific performance may not be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 if a valid cause of action is pleaded, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff and Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent - defendant.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section - 96 read with Order -XLI, Rule - 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 09.08.2023 in I.A. No.663 of 2023 in O.S. No.38 of 2023 passed by learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

i) The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S. No.38 of 2023.

ii) The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No.38 of 2023 against the respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03.1.2020 in respect of suit schedule property i.e., Flat No.1402, th admeasuring 2838 square feet in 14 Floor, F-Block, Sale Area which comprises of 1988 square feet of Carpet Area exclusive balcony area admeasuring 191 square feet and proportionate common area admeasuring 656 square feet along with allotment of three Car Parking spaces in basement and undivided 76 square yards of land out of 58585 square yards in Survey No.5, situated at Kondapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District.

iii) In the said suit, the respondent - defendant filed an application under Order - VII, Rule 11 (a) of CPC to reject the plaint on the following grounds:

(a) The appellant through her father approached the respondent’s father, GPA Holder, to cancel the agreement of sale dated 03.11.2020 for sale of suit schedule flat and sought for refund of entire amount paid by her enabling her to purchase the bigger size of flat which belongs to the father of the respondent.

(b)After several negotiations, the father of the respondent agreed to cancel the said agreement of sale dated 03.11.2020 and accordingly entire advance sale consideration paid by the appellant was returned through RTGS on 02.03.2022 and 06.04.2022.

(c) The father of the respondent also addressed a letter on 12.04.2022 to the appellant intimating about cancellation of said agreement and return of sale consideration amount and also the original agreement of sale dated 03.11.2020. The said letter was handed over to the father of the appellant when he visited to the office of the father of respondent, but the said original agreement was not returned.

(d)The father of respondent informed the respondent that he had cancelled the subject agreement of sale with the appellant and he had already entered into another agreement of sale on 25.11.2021 and the appellant utilized the repaid amount towards advance for fresh agreement of sale dated 25.11.2021.

(e) Thus, there is no subsisting cause of action between the parties.

(f) The averments of entire plaint do not disclose any cause of action for the appellant.

(g)There is no evidence to establish compliance of Section - 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act.

iv) The appellant - plaintiff opposed the said application contending as follows:

(a) The respondent - defendant failed to make out any ground for rejection of plaint.

(b)The petition filed by the defendant is an abuse of process of the Court, vexatious, to prolong the hearing.

(c) She denied about her father approaching the father of defendant to cancel the agreement dated 03.11.2022 and refund of amount etc.

(d)Sh