The court examined whether a plaint for specific performance can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when the underlying agreement was executed in violation of a judicial restraining order and the vendor subsequently acknowledged the title of the applicants.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the order passed in Special Civil Suit No.359 of 2023, whereby, application below Exhibit-35 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by order dated 12.09.2025.

2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore for the defendant has mainly argued that if the plaint and documents filed in Special Civil Suit No.359 of 2023 are taken into consideration, the suit that has been filed is for specific performance of an agreement dated 05.11.2020, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the fact remains that the suit property which has already been purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 24.08.2001 from the original owners.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore has argued that thereafter the original owners executed sale deed in favour of original defendant on 21.09.2001 with respect to half of the suit property and the other half was sold by a registered sale deed on 15.02.2001 and the fact remains that on 21.09.2001, the original owners did not have any right, title, interest in the suit property.

4. Learned senior advocate has also brought to the notice of this Court that in the document produced on 3/1, dated 05.11.2020, there is a specific mention of the fact that the sale deed has been registered and executed on 06.10.2001 and on 24.08.2001 in favour of petitioner. Moreover, in the said settlement document, dated 05.11.2020, there is also mention of litigations pending with respect to the suit property.

5. In view of the fact that the said agreement there is a reference of litigation, though the documents pertaining to said litigation have not been produced alongwith the plaint though have referred in the said document, the same can be looked into by this Court while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned senior advocate has relied on the plaint of Civil Suit No.313 of 2001, filed by the petitioners are not original owner who are defendant No.2 to 6 and the original defedendant herein who is defendant No.7 in the said proceeding and the relief that has been sought in the said suit are to restrain the defendants including the original defendant of Civil Sit No.359 of 2023 from transferring, assigning or creating any third party right and challenged the sale deed executed in favour of original defendant to be declared illegal and void and it has been argued that the trial Court while deciding the Exhibit-5 application, whereby, by an order dated 23.09.2003, the Court has granted interim relief in terms of para-17(A) of the Injunction Application, therefore, in view of the fact that the original defendant was also restrained from creating any third party right in the suit property, original defendant could not have executed the agreement, dated 05.11.2020. It has been argued by learned senior advocate that though the said suit has thereafter withdrawn on 13.08.2022, the fact remains that agreement entered into between the parties is during the period when the Court had restrained the defendant No.7 from entering into any agreement and creating any third party right. Therefoe, in view of the fact that the agreement that has been entered on 05.11.2003 disqualified the defendant from entering into agreement and the same is in violation of the order of the trial Court, therefore, no cause of action has arise