The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on civil procedure, has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff is entitled to even one of the many reliefs claimed. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, set aside orders from the Telangana High Court and a trial court that had rejected a suit for specific performance at the preliminary stage.
The Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan, restoring his suit for trial and clarifying the scope of examination under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an agreement to sell dated August 23, 2018, between the appellant, Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan, and Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 6). The agreement pertained to two parcels of agricultural land in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for a total sale consideration of ₹4 crores. The appellant paid a total advance of ₹12 lakhs in three installments via cheques.
The judgment notes that the agreement did not specify a timeline for the payment of the balance consideration. When the appellant issued a notice on May 18, 2023, calling upon the seller to execute the sale deed, he discovered a subsequent development. The seller (Respondent No. 6) had entered into a compromise decree on January 2, 2023, with other parties (Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and another defendant) in two separate injunction suits (O.S. No. 42 and 43 of 2014) that had been pending since before the agreement to sell. This compromise decree effectively transferred ownership rights to these third parties.
Consequently, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the 2018 agreement (O.S. No. 414 of 2023), impleading the original seller and the beneficiaries of the compromise decree. In his suit, the appellant sought directions for the defendants to execute the sale deed, deliver possession, and also prayed for the cancellation of the compromise decrees.
Arguments and Lower Court Rulings
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for the rejection of the plaint. Their primary arguments were that there was no privity of contract between them and the appellant, and that a separate suit for cancellation of a compromise decree was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.
The Trial Court, by its order dated October 30, 2023, allowed the application and rejected the plaint, finding that it lacked pleadings on the maintainability of the reliefs claimed.
The appellant challenged this order before the Telangana High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated January 10, 2025, dismissed the appeal. While noting that the Trial Court’s reasoning was not “appropriate,” it upheld the rejection on its own grounds, concluding that the suit was barred by Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against Defendant Nos. 2 to 6.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court disagreed with the findings of the lower courts. The bench observed that the suit contained a clear cause of action for specific performance against the original seller (Respondent No. 6), independent of the claims against the other defendants.
The Court held that even if the relief of cancellation of the compromise decree was contentious, the suit for specific performance against the seller could still be tried. Furthermore, the Court noted that by rejecting the plaint entirely, the appellant was also deprived of his alternative right to seek a refund of the advance amount. The judgment states, “The cause of action for the said relief was always pleaded, and since the payment was made by cheques, the burden would lie upon Respondent No.6 to prove that either he had returned the said amount, or that the said amount paid as advance was for some other purpose unrelated to the property in question.”
The bench also pointed out that the compromise decree arose from suits that were initially filed only for a permanent injunction, not for a declaration of title. It found it noteworthy that Respondent No. 6 had initially denied the ownership claims of the other parties in those suits, calling their documents “forged and fabricated,” only to later concede their ownership in the compromise. The Court observed, “Whether or not it was collusive or unlawful would be decided in the suit, subject to appropriate issues being framed and evidence led by the parties.”
Reiterating a settled principle of law, the Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Justice Mehta, writing the order, stated, “It is a well-settled principle of law that where out of many reliefs claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff is found entitled to even one of them, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
The Court cited its previous judgments in Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited and Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. to underscore this principle. Quoting from Sejal Glass, the bench noted, “if the plaint survives against certain defendants and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Trial Court had committed an error. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.
