JUDGMENT
Gita Mittal, J.
1. This order disposes of IA No. 5540/2005 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint in this suit for specific performance and permanent injunctiion filed by the plaintiff.
2. It is trite that for consideration of an application seeking rejection of a plaint on the grounds mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, the court is precluded from examination of anything other than the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has brought the suit on the averments that on 27th March, 2004, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the defendant’s property bearing No. 5/78, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027 admeasuring 100 sq. yards for a total sale consideration of Rs. 23,15,000/-. The plaintiff has urged that it paid a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- in cash to the defendant as earnest money which was acknowledged in the agreement to sell and purchase executed by the defendant. Inasmuch as the defendant avoided execution of the necessary documents and getting the suit property transferred in her name from the concerned authorities, which was the Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and also failed to obtain the requisite permission for transfer of the suit within the stipulated period of 120 days, the plaintiff repeatedly approached the defendant to do the needful. The plaintiff was required to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- within 120 days which came to an end on 25th July, 2007. The defendant was required to discharge the obligation imposed on her within the same period.
4. As the defendant kept giving false assurances yet did not discharge her obligations in terms of the agreement to sell dated 27th March, 2004 Instead of doing the needful, the defendant sent a notice through a telegram to the plaintiff on 18th July, 2004, notifying the plaintiff that in case payment was not made on 19th July, 2004, the earnest money would stand forfeited.
5. The plaintiff was thus constrained to get served a legal notice dated 22nd July, 2004 within the stipulated period, by registered AD post as well as UPC to the defendant clearly notifying the defendant that the plaintiff was to make the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,50,000/- and called upon the defendant to come forward and accept the same as also to do all the necessary acts under the agreement. In the reply dated 28th July, 2004 sent by the defendant after the expiry of the 120 days, the defendant notified the plaintiff that the property has been transferred in her name and called upon the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the reason that though he approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration, however she failed to produce the requisite documents issued by the Land and Development Office in her favor and also failed to show any documents which would have evidenced up to date deposit of the house tax, water and electricity charges as well as damages complaining the plaintiff to seek the relief of injunction and specific performance of the agreement dated 27th March, 2004 The plaintiff has urged that he has all along been ready and willing to complete his part of the agreement.
6. It is noteworthy that in this matter, admission and denial of the documents filed by the parties has been recorded on 15th December, 2006. The defendant has admitted the signatures on the documents dated 27th March, 2004 The defendant has also admitted the telegram dated 18th July, 2004 which has been marked Exhibit P-3 and reply to the legal notice dated 28th July, 2004 issued on behalf of the defendant has been admitted and marked Exhibit P-2.
7. This application has been filed by the defendant urging that the signature of the defendant is placed in the space for the signatures of the purchaser in the documents dated 27th March, 2004 and that consequently the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present suit meritting rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of this contention, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the defendant has relied on a pronouncement of this Court reported at 135, 2006 DLT 56 Randhir Singh Chandok v. Vipin Bansal and has also urged that the agreement cum receipt is inadmissible for want of proper stamp and registration under Section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.
8. In 2006 (86) DRJ 374 Ajit Singh v. Ramesh Vohra and Anr., the court held that for the purposes of consideration of the issues as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, all the pleadings in the plaint have to be treated as correct and the defense has not to be looked into. The court emphasised the principle that the plaint had to be read meaningfully. Rejection of a plaint is undoubtedly a serious matter in as much as it would terminate the proceedings before the court and consequently have serious repercussions on the rights of the parties. The same cannot be had recourse to lightly and requires a serious construction of the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
9. For this reason, the courts have emphasised that the pleadings have to be meaningfully read. In this behalf, it would be instructive to advert to the pronouncement Harnam Singh v. Surjit Singh.
10. In 88 (2000) DLT 769 Inspiration Clothes and U v. Colby International Limited, it was held thus:
10. …No doubt that where the plaint is based on a document, the Court will be entitled to consider the said document also and ascertain if a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, but validity of the document cannot be considered at this stage. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and documents accompanying the plaint only and nothing else. The Court, however, cannot look at the defense of the defendant or the documents relied upon by the defendant. See D. Ramchandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and Ors. . Learned Single Judge fell in error in placing reliance upon the material supplied by the defendant, which alone is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Learned Single Judge instead of proceeding to reject the plaint dismissed the suit, which approach is also erroneous. The effect of dismissal of suit is altogether different and distinct from the effect of rejection of the plaint. In case plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, filing of a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action is specifically, permitted under Rule 13 of Order 7, CPC. Altogether different consequence follows in the event of dismissal of suit, which has the effect of precluding the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Rejection of plaint takes away the very basis of the suit rendering as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was instituted. Order of dismissal of suit while recognising the existence of a suit indicates its termination. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, learned Single Judge ought not and could not have dismissed the suit. Even in the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Anvandandam’s case (supra), relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant, it was held that if on a meaningful ‘not formal’ reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Trial Court should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfillled. In order to fulfill that ground bare allegation made in the plaint and the documents filed therewith were required to be looked into which in the instant case clearly disclosed at least a cause of action against the defendant that defendant was liable for damages for its acts of omission and commission. It would be an altogether different situation that the plaintiff might not ultimately succeed in obtaining a decree against the defendant or that Court might come to the conclusion that suit would not be maintainable against the defendant and that plaintiff had a cause of action only against defendant’s principal and its parent unit in Hong Kong, but such aspect could not have been gone into at this stage. Three paragraphs of the plaint quoted above in our view do clearly disclose cause of action for the plaintiff to claim damages.
11. So far as admissibility of the documents is concerned, the same would therefore be considered at an appropriate stage. However it becomes necessary to examine the plea of the defendant that there is no agreement to sell entered into by her.
12. So far as consideration at the present stage for the purposes of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, this Court is required to consider the plaint and the documents of the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the documents dated 27th March, 2004 contains the signature of the defendant and the document has been accepted as Exhibit P-1. The defendant has called upon the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration and to come forward for the registration of documents by its telegraphic notice dated 18th July, 2004 and the reply to the legal notice dated 28th July, 2004 which have been exhibited as Exhibit P-2 and P-3 on record. The plaintiff has stated in her plaint that the plaintiff has paid earnest money and he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract so far as the agreement to sell is concerned, I find that the defendant in all documents prior to her written statement has accepted the existence of the agreement to sell.
13. In the case reported at 135 (2006) DLT 56 Randhir Chandok v. Vipin Bansal, the plaintiff has not signed the documents and it was held that it was lacking in mutuality and therefore held to be an unenforceable agreement to sell. It was for this reason also held that the document was not an agreement to sell but at best would be a memorandum of tentative understanding between the parties and it was in this background that the court came to a conclusion that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable.
14. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the documents dated 27th March, 2004 bears the signatures of the defendant. There is also no dispute that the defendant has received the earnest money mentioned in the document. The defendant has herself called upon the plaintiff to come forward to complete the transaction of sale by her telegram (Exhibit P-2) and reply to the notice (Exhibit P-3). The judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh Chandok’s case has thus no application to the facts of this case.
15. In this view of the matter, this application is wholly misconceived.
16. I find that this application was filed in the year 2005 and adjudication in the present case has been delayed eversince. The defendant/applicant is therefore liable to pay costs. In these circumstances, the application is dismissed subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as costs.