Application No.4339 of 2008 is an application filed by the applicants, who are the defendants 1 to 3 in C.S.No.636 of 2008. This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C to reject the plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.
2. The respondents have filed the Suit for specific performance directing the applicants/defendants to execute and register the sale deed to the plaintiffs as per the agreement of sale dated 9.12.2001, after receiving the balance sale consideration and on failure of which to direct the Registrar to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants. Further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands was also sought for. In the schedule to the suit, property was described as land to an extent of 1 Acre and 96 Cents in Survey No.155/2 situated at Selavoyal Village, Kodungiyur, Corporation Municipal Division No.1 within Sri Naachammal Nagar Layout exclusive of 38 plots.
3. Cause of action as set out in paragraph 15 of the plaint, reads as follows:
"15. The cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on 25.7.1993 when Ranganayaki executed a Registered Power of Attorney in favour of 1st defendant on 9.12.2001 when sale agreement was entered into between Ranganayaki though the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs, Supplemental agreement dated 19.4.2002, on 6.8.2002 letter by 1st defendant to the plaintiffs, on 12.8.2002, 27.8.2002, letters between the parties, on various dates upto 10.4.2003 when the 1st defendant received payments from the plaintiffs, on 29.9.2003 when plaintiffs caused legal notice, on various dates when plaintiffs paid a total sum of Rs.16,28,658/- on 19.4.2004 when sale deeds were executed by 1st defendant to the nominees of the plaintiffs and on all dates when the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and pay the money to 1st defendant when the Principal Ranganayaki Ammal died, when defendants 2 and 3 being legal heirs are bound to execute sale deed as per Sale Agreements and on all dates when the plaintiffs improved the lands and plotted out and are in possession on 4.10.07 when the suit filed by the 1st defendant was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Chennai.
4. Pending the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed O.A.Nos.826 and 827 of 2008 for a permanent injunction from restraining the defendants from alienating the suit lands and for an order of injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
5. The suit was filed on the basis of the sale agreement dated 9.12.2001 and 19.4.2002, which was the supplemental agreement filed as Documents 1 and 2 in the Plaint. By the Sale Agreement dated 9.12.2001, the defendants had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiffs. The time was fixed in para 2 of the agreement by which the entire sale consideration has to be paid before 31.3.2002. It was also agreed in para 11 that the registration of the property will be done only after full sale consideration was received. In the supplemental agreement, it was shown that a mutual discussion took place on 19.4.2002 and accordingly time was extended upto 15.6.2002. The paid amounts were set out in paragraph 4 of the supplemental agreement.
6. Thereafter, on 6.8.2002, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that if the amounts are not paid, the sale agreement will be terminated. The plaintiffs are relying upon two letters dated 24.6.2002 and 6.8.2002 addressed by the plaintiffs to the defendants and that they are working in terms of the agreement and trying to get necessary approval. But these documents enclosed as Plaint Document Nos.12 and 13 were disputed by the defendants. In paragraph 13 of the plaint the plaintiffs have stated that a cancellation deed was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 16.8.2003 but it was non-est in law. A copy of the said document produced shows that the respondents/ plaintiffs have expressed their inability to pay the amount as per the terms of the agreement. The agreement for sale had been cancelled and that the plaintiffs have stated that they have no claim or the title. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiffs have come out with the present suit.
7. Therefore, it was contended that while the defendants were ready and willing to fulfill their part of the contract, it was the plaintiffs who are not willing as per the sale agreement. Therefore, it is stated that since the deed by cancellation has been admitted in the plaint, no cause of action arose for entertaining the plaint and even as otherwise the claim is barred by limitation.
8. Under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) of the C.P.C, it is stated that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action for the suit. It has to be culled out from the statement in the plaint. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the cause of action for the suit if at all arose it must be on the day when the deed of cancellation was executed. If time is calculated from that date, the suit is barred by limitation, as it was filed on 25.6.2008 and was admitted on 2.7.2008. It is further stated that in the absence of any existing agreement for sale, the question of suit for a specific performance does not arise. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property.
9. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs filed counter statement. It is stated that for rejecting the plaint, the entire plaint averments should be read and the defence of the defendants cannot be taken into account at this stage. The cause of action set out in para 15 extracted above clearly disclosed that the suit was maintainable.
10. This Court is unable to agree with the submission of the plaintiffs. In a suit for specific performance, if the agreement itself does not exist any more and there is a specific cancellation of the agreement admitted by the plaintiffs in paragraph No.13 of the plaint, it cannot be said that there was any cause of action. In any event, since the cancellation of the agreement is dated 16.9.2003, no cause of action can arise for the specific performance of the contract. The suit cannot be filed after five years and it is clearly barred by limitation.
11. The Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. vs. M.V.Sea Success I and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512, in paragraphs 132 and 132 had observed as follows:
"132. It is trite that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit. An order refusing to reject a plaint will finally determine his right in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
133. The idea underlying Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the court's resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant"
12. In case from a bare reading of the plaint and the admitted documents and the facts coming out in the statement of the plaintiff under Order 10, the court could come to the conclusion that the plaint does not disclose cause of action or the suit is barred by limitation is not maintainable, the court can decide the said points even without recording any evidence. (See: AIR 1992 Del 118)
13. If a proceeding represents a situation where on a plain appraised of the material, the trial court finds that no cause of action has been made out and that mechanically proceeding with the matter up the stage of issues, evidence and judgment would be totally worthless, the court would be more than fully justified in dismissing the proceeding at the threshold itself. (See: AIR 1997 Kant. 77.)
14. Therefore, in the light of the above both grounds set out in Order 7 Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC are made out, the application No.4339 of 2008 is allowed and the plaint in C.S.No.636 of 2008 is rejected. Hence, the suit in C.S.No.636 of 2008 is struck of from the file of this Court.
15. In the light of the same, the other two applications, viz., O.A.No.826 and O.A.No.827 of 2008 stand dismissed. No costs.
ajr