Court maintains that factual disputes regarding claims for maintenance must be resolved through evidence during trial, not via preemptive dismissal of the plaint.

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/1^st defendant seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit seeking direction to the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.17,30,100/- (rupees seventeen lakhs thirty thousand and hundred only) towards Corpus Fund, Monthly Maintenance Charges, default fees, etc., due from March 2017 to 31.01.2020 in respect of the flats belonging to the petitioner in Schedule-A property which are morefully described as Schedule-B property. The first respondent also sought for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and the second respondent to hand over the title deed documents described in Schedule-C to the suit property. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein, who was the owner of the site, entered into a development agreement with the second respondent for the purpose of construction of 26 flats. As per the development agreement, the second respondent/2^nd defendant was given right to sell 12 flats and 14 flats have to be handed over to the petitioner/1^st defendant towards his share. After the completion of the project by the second respondent, the petitioner herein sold three flats allotted to him through second respondent. Therefore, 11 flats were handed over to the petitioner/1^st defendant as on October 2016. However, the petitioner/1^st defendant failed to pay monthly maintenance to the first respondent association in respect of the flats under his control. It is further stated by the first respondent association that after completion of the project, there was a closure agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent and as per the same, the petitioner/ 1^st defendant and the second respondent/ 2^nd defendant were obliged to hand over the title documents and original documents of the site to the first respondent association. However, the petitioner and the second respondent failed to hand over the same. Therefore, the instant suit has been filed seeking above said reliefs.

4. The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as first defendant in the suit, filed instant application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that as per clause 13(17) of Bye-laws association, in case of any dispute between the association and members, the matter should be referred to the decision of the general body and without following the said procedure, the instant suit has been filed. It is further stated that though it was claimed by the first respondent association that 11 flats were handed over to the petitioner as per the closure agreement dated 12.10.2016, only 8 flats were handed over and hence, the first respondent association has no cause of action to demand maintenance and other charges for 11 flats.

5. The trial court was not convinced with the points raised by the petitioner and dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ 1^st defendant has come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 2^nd respondent handed over only 8 flats to the petitioner and therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent association seeking recovery of monthly maintenance and other charges in respect of 11 flats is not tenable in law. He further submitted that the first respondent association was formed only during February 2018 and therefore, the plaint prayer for recovery of amount from March 2017 is not maintainable. He further submitted that as per clause 13(17) of Bye-laws, the suit filed by the first respondent association, without referring the matter to the general body of the association, is not maintainable.

7. As far as the first contention of the petitioner is conc