Summary
The Supreme Court restored a specific-performance suit rejected in review under Order VII Rule 11(d). The defendant’s alleged earlier agreements and refund notice were not part of the plaintiff’s plaint record and could not establish the bar at that stage. On the plaint’s case, the earlier injunction suit preceded crystallisation of the contractual right to specific performance. Maintainability could still be considered appropriately after pleadings.
Issues
- Whether material outside the plaint record could establish an Order II Rule 2 bar at the plaint-rejection stage.
- Whether the earlier injunction suit necessarily barred the later claim for specific performance.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The bar must emerge from the plaint read with its relied-on documents; defence allegations and external evidence cannot determine disputed merits at this stage. (¶¶ 16–20, 23–27)
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The later relief was not shown on the plaint record to have been available on the same cause of action when the earlier injunction suit was filed. (¶ 21–26)
Held
- Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic threshold remedy requiring strict adherence to its conditions. The plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole with its relied-on documents; the written statement, defence evidence and disputed factual merits cannot be used to establish the asserted bar. (¶¶ 16–20, 26)
- On the pleaded arrangement, execution awaited resolution of the vendor’s family litigation. The earlier injunction suit protected against third-party dealings before that event; the cause of action to seek specific performance had not then arisen. Precedents involving omission of an already available specific-performance relief were distinguishable. (¶ 21–24)
- The agreements and refund notice relied on by the defendant were outside the record filed with the plaint. They could not justify its rejection. Restoration did not adjudicate enforceability or eliminate later maintainability objections; the trial court could, if appropriate, treat maintainability as a preliminary issue after pleadings. (¶ 25–28)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court’s review order rejecting the plaint set aside; trial court directed to proceed with the suit, with liberty to consider maintainability as a preliminary issue if appropriate after pleadings.