ORDER

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the defendant to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.25 of 2021 on the ground that the pleadings lack the averments as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that the suit is barred by limitation. Apart from this, the petition is also moved on the ground that the agreement dated 08.08.2017 is a forged document.

2.The brief facts, necessary to consider this revision, are as follows:-

2.1.The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.25 of

2021 for the following reliefs:-

“m) tHf;F brhji; j thjpf;F gpujpthjp fpiuag;gjj; puk; gjpe;J bfhLff; cj;jutpl;Lk.; gpujpthjp mt;thW gjpe;J bfhLf;f jtWk; gl;rjj; py; rK:fk; nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fns thjpfF; tHf;F brhji; j fpiuak; gjpe;J bfhLf;f Vjthf cjj; utpl;Lk;.

3.It is the case of the plaintiff that on 08.08.2017, the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into an agreement in and by which, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid and the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid before the year 2021. The plaintiff would submit that he had paid a huge advance only on the assurance of the defendant and that since he is already in possession of the property, where he was running his fish stall, he need not apprehend that the defendant would renege on the agreement. However, after receiving the payment, the defendant and his family were giving several pinpricks to his enjoyment. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 10.12.2020 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed. The defendant sent a reply dated 16.12.2020 making false allegations. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit for specific performance.

4.Written statement has been filed by the defendant denying the agreement of Sale. The defendant had also questioned the capacity of the plaintiff to pay such a huge amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as he had already filed a petition for having himself declared as an insolvent in I.P.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. He had also submitted that the agreement itself was a forged document. It is in this background, the instant revision petition has been filed.

5.This Court is of the considered opinion that while considering an application to reject the plaint, the Court is only bound by the contents of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. Courts cannot be influenced into rejecting the plaint on the basis of the written statement or any other document. The defendant seeks to have the plaint struck off on the ground of limitation, failure to plead readiness and willingness and that the agreement is forged. All of these grounds have to be raised and proved only during the trial and the arguments. These are not grounds for rejecting the plaint at the threshold. The petitioner has not made out any ground for striking of the plaint at the inception itself. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Taking into account the serious allegations made against the plaintiff particularly the fact that he has filed an application for having declared him as an insolvent, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pudukkottai, shall proceed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.12.2021 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr Note:-

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

To The Principal Sub Co