Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
G BASAVARAJA, J
SRI. DESAI UDAYKUMAR S/O. SRI. VASANTH RAO DESAI – Appellant
Versus
M/S. NR GREENWOOD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100079 OF 2025 | OS NO.803/2022
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court examined the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties and found that it was merely an expression of intent and lacked mutual consideration, rendering it unenforceable as a binding agreement (!) (!) (!) .
The MoU did not specify any consideration exchanged between the parties, and neither party paid or received consideration for the agreement, which makes it a nudum pactum (a bare promise) that is incapable of enforcement under law (!) (!) .
The essential terms of the MoU were left open, and there was no concluded contract, making it non-enforceable and not a basis for specific performance (!) (!) .
The agreement was also found to be uncertain in terms of contractual obligations, which violates the requirement of certainty in contractual terms (!) .
The court emphasized that agreements to enter into future agreements are not enforceable and that such MoUs are unenforceable because they do not constitute a concluded contract (!) (!) .
The application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), and (d) was considered and ultimately allowed, leading to the rejection of the plaint, as the suit was found to be barred by law and based on an unenforceable agreement (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of dismissing hopelessly time-barred or legally barred claims at the earliest stage to prevent abuse of the legal process and to conserve judicial resources (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that an agreement without consideration is void and that the Memorandum of Understanding did not meet the criteria of a binding contract, thus making the claim for specific performance unsustainable (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 was set aside, and the plaint was rejected (!) (!) .
Each party was directed to bear their own costs, and the order was transmitted to the trial court for implementation (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning and final decision regarding the enforceability of the agreement and the rejection of the suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for joint development agreement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's challenges to the plaint's cause of action. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. contract enforceability and lack of consideration. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. judicial economy and timely rejection of meritless suits. (Para 16 , 19) |
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The Petitioner, who is the defendant in OS No.803 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Dharwad (for short “the trial Court”), has preferred the present Revision Petition against the order dated 19th April, 2025 passed on IA.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure .
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for decreeing the suit of plaintiff directing the defendant to execute Joint Development Agreement in respect of the suit properties, as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th March, 2021.
4. It is stated in the plaint that defendant is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.48, measuring 22 acre 13 guntas; 2 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.48/1 and 8 acre 24 guntas in Sy.No.49/3, all situate at Mansur village, Dharwad. The plaintiff offered to enter into a Joint Development Agreement with the defendant in respect of the suit properties, which shall empower the plaintiff to develop the said property into a residential layout according to the plan that would be approved by the competent authorities. Pursuant to same, plaintiff and defendant entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th March, 2021, agreeing to execute a Joint Development Agreement in respect of suit schedule properties and it was agreed that the ratio of the scheme shall be 45:55%, of which 45% of the developed area would be allotted to defendant and 55% to the plaintiff. It was agreed that, under the Memorandum of Understanding, the defendant would come forward and execute the Joint Development Agreement within a period of three months from the date of entering into Memorandum of Understanding. However, the defendant failed and neglected to execute the Joint Development Agreement within the stipulated period of three months as per the Memorandum of Understanding. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to issue legal notice dated 8th February, 2022, calling upon the defendant to execute the Joint Development Agreement as agreed upon. However, instead of complying the same, defendant got issued a vague and evasive reply dated 25th February, 2022. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant having agreed to execute the Joint Development Agreement in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter to develop the suit property into a residential layout, now, for the reasons best known to him, is not coming forward to execute the Joint Development Agreement and develop the schedule property. It is stated that the defendant, in order to frustrate/deprive the plaintiff of its legally enforceable rights under the Memorandum of Understanding and in order to gain unjust enrichment at the cost of the plaintiff, clandestinely attempting to create third party rights over the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform its part of contract under the memorandum of understanding and that the defendant, without there being any justifiable reasons, is denying to perform his part of contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the suit.
5. The defendant entered appearance through his Counsel and filed written statement. An Application under Order VII Rules 11(a), (b) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure is also filed. Plaintiff had filed objection to the Application IA.No.5.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the Application, the defendant has prefe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
