IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-16.12.2025 Uploaded on:- 16.12.2025 Mohan Magotra … Petitioner Versus M/s Ujjala Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and another ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate, Mt. Vikrant Rana, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1/Caveator.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurgaon, in CS No. 2244 of 2025, titled M/s Ujjala Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Magotra & Anr., whereby the petitioner’s application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) was dismissed, refusing to reject the plaint instituted by respondent No. 1. The petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court erred in law in declining to strike out the plaint at the threshold and, in the interest of justice, seeks a stay of further proceedings in the said case during the pendency of the present revision.

2. The narrative of material facts underlying the instant proceedings is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third-party rights over 4.00 acres of agricultural land at Sector 75, Village Badshahpur, Gurugram, Haryana. The suit is premised on a Binding Term Sheet dated 19.06.2025 with Defendant No. 1, under which the Plaintiff agreed to acquire and develop the land for Rs. 40 crore per acre, payable through saleable area inventory. The Plaintiff alleges that a cheque for `1 crore was issued and acknowledged by Defendant No. 1, while an attempted RTGS transfer of the same amount was allegedly obstructed by the Defendant’s mala fide conduct. It is further contended that the land is now registered in the name of Defendant No. 2, son of Defendant No. 1, and that both Defendants are purportedly attempting to alienate the property in breach of the Term Sheet.

3. Defendant No. 1 has appeared to contest the application and submits that the suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the Plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy in seeking specific performance of the Term Sheet. The Term Sheet is void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, being vague and uncertain in material terms, including the timeline for RERA registration, the nature of the agreement (outright purchase versus collaboration), and the mechanism for allocating saleable area inventory as consideration. The suit land is registered in the name of Defendant No. 2, and Defendant No. 1 has no right, title, or interest therein, rendering the Term Sheet unenforceable against Defendant No. 2.

Furthermore, the Term Sheet contemplates a future collaboration agreement and execution of a General Power of Attorney, amounting to an agreement to enter into an agreement, which is inherently unenforceable. Consequently, the suit lacks a cause of action against Defendant No. 2 and is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) CPC.

4. The learned trial Court, upon due consideration of the application and the material placed on record, proceeded to dismiss the same vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been instituted, assailing the said order as being illegal, void, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the learned Civil Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and, in the process, committed a grave jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

4.1. The principal grounds of challenge urged by the petitioners are that the suit for permanent injunction itself was not maintainable and was expressly barred under Section 41(h) of the S