Hoysala Projects Private Limited vs Yeragatupalli Radhakumar Reddy and Others

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard regarding admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Bangalore Rural District, in O.S. 1468/14 passed on I.A. 2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), C.P.C. is called in question by filing this petition under Section 115, C.P.C.

Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. He chose to file the suit on the basis of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the 1st defendant-Rukminiamma in his favour on 16.2.2011 for a total consideration of Rs. 1.8 crores. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has paid Rs. 1.7 crores to the 1st defendant as part of the consideration and he has assured to executed a regular sale deed after receiving the balance consideration.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has handed over all the documents she had in his favour at the time of executing agreement of sale. Cause of action for the suit is said to have arisen on 16.2.2011 when the 1st defendant executed the agreement of sale and further when legal notice was got issued to him to execute regular sale deed and thereafter when he denied the same. With these pleadings the suit was filed.

The 4th defendant is stated to be the subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property from the 2nd defendant who is stated to be the donee under the 1st defendant. According to him, the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the documents said to have been handed over by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff were not produced. Other contentions have also been raised denying the very execution of the agreement of sale and readiness and willingness. With these pleadings the 4th defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C. was filed requesting the trial court to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and that noncompliance of Order VII Rule 11(14)(2), C.P.C. would be virtually barred under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C.

The said application numbered as I.A. 2 has been considered at length and the learned judge has chosen to dismiss it by order dated 3.12.2014. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision petition.

The entire lower court records are called for. Perused the same.

As per Rule 14(1) of Order VII, C.P.C., the plaintiff is expected to furnish all documents relied upon by him or her if the same is in his/her possession. The documents must be entered in a list and produced court at the time of presenting the plaint. If the party who has relied on such document is not in possession of the same, he is expected to state in the plaint as to who is in possession of it. After going through the list of documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint, the deeds stated to have been handed over by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the date of executing the agreement of sale are not furnished. Therefore it is vehemently argued that non-compliance makes out a clear case of non-existence of cause of action.

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon''ble apex court in the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, AIR 2013 SC 3912 : (2013) 115 CLT 220 : (2012) 4 CTC 308 : (2012) 6 JT 149 : (2012) 168 PLR 627 : (2012) 3 RCR(Civil) 811 : (2012) 8 SCC 706 . Dealing with the provisions of Order VII Rule 14(1) and (2), C.P.C., the Hon''ble apex court has held that ''the plaintiff is expected to produce documents on which cause of action is based.'' It has further held that non-compliance of Rule 11(1) and (2) of Order VII, C.P.C. would be fatal.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this assumes more importance in a case filed for the relief of specific performance. What exactly is the cause of action is spelled out in paragraph 27 of the plaint and the same is hereby reproduced:

''The cause of action for the suit arose in 16.2.2011 when the 1st defendant executed in the plaintiffs favour, the agreement for sale Annexure-A and received a sum of Rs. 1.70 crores agreeing to convey the schedule property to the plaintiff, on the various dates thereafter when the plaintiff called upon the 1st defendant to complete the conveyance and the 1st defendant evaded the issue on various pretexts, on 4.2.2010. When the 1st defendant purported to convey the property to the 2nd defendant by way of a gift, on 28.2.2013 when the defendants caused the publication of a notice of the intended conveyance, on 23.3.2013 when the 1st and 2nd defendants entered into an agreement with the 3rd defendant to convey the property to him, on 1.4.2013 and 8.4.2013 when correspondence was exchanged between counsel for the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, on 14.6.2013 when the property was purportedly conveyed to the 4th defendant by way of sale, on 25.6.2014 when the plaintiff called upon the defendants to complete the conveyance by execution of a registered sale deed, on 4.7.2014 when the 4th defendant repudiated the plaintiffs demand, on 10.7.2014 when the defendants were required to convey the schedule property to the plaintiff but failed to do so and subsequently, within the jurisdiction of the Hon''ble Court, where the schedule property is situated.''

Admittedly the suit is one for specific performance based on the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 16.2.2011. Of course the said document is produced before the trial court. In the light of the plaintiff having approached the defendant several times to execute the sale deed and I the light of denial of the same, notice was got issued by him and copy is produced. Normally in a suit for specific performance, prior notice is required and compliance is made thereof by filing copy of legal notice.

It is true that if the plaintiff had produced the documents said to have been handed over by the 1st defendant at the time of executing the agreement of sale as found in paragraphs 5, 14 and 16 of the plaint, it would have made out a clear cause of action. Whether non-furnishing of documents makes out non-existence of cause of action is the question.

Cause of action depends on any relief prayed for in the suit. Admittedly the suit in question is one for specific performance and the main document on which reliance is based is the agreement of sale and it is produced. Handing over of certain sale deeds by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff at the time of executing agreement of sale may be an added circumstance to the alleged execution. If those documents are not filed, it is for the plaintiff to file it at the appropriate time and of course the court is expected to consider the request for condonation of delay in production of such documents as mandated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII, C.P.C. Suffice to state that all important documents which are necessarily to be filed for specific performance have been filed and non-production of certain other documents relied on in paragraphs 5, 14 and 16 cannot be considered as one of not making out cause of action for the present suit.

Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly petition is dismissed.