Can the Court reject a plaint for a suit of specific performance of contract if the plaintiff has failed to mention the date of the agreement as mandated by Appendix A, Form 47 and 48 of the CPC?

 Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code

11. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior Counsel by taking us through Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code which relate to suit for specific performance submitted that inasmuch as those forms are statutory in nature with regard to the claim filed for the relief for specific performance, the Court has to be satisfied that the plaint discloses a cause of action. In view of Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d), the Court has to satisfy that the plaint discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law. The statutory forms require the date of agreement to be mentioned to reflect that it does not appear to be barred by limitation. In addition to the same, in a suit for specific performance, there should be an agreement by the Defendant or by a person duly authorized by a power of attorney executed in his favour by the owner.

We have already mentioned Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix A and failure to mention date violates the statutory requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of limitation, the plaint has to conform to Order VII Rule 6 and specifically plead the ground upon which exemption from limitation is claimed. It was rightly pointed out on the side of the Appellant that in order to get over the bar of limitation all the required details have been omitted.

21. In the light of the above discussion, in view of the shortfall in the plaint averments, statutory provisions, namely, Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), Form Nos. 47 and 48 in Appendix A of the Code which are statutory in nature, we hold that the learned single Judge of the High Court has correctly concluded that in the absence of any cause of action shown as against the 1st Defendant, the suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance or for the recovery of money advanced which according to the Plaintiff was given to the 2nd Defendant in the suit and rightly rejected the plaint as against the 1st Defendant. Unfortunately, the Division bench failed to consider all those relevant aspects and erroneously reversed the decision of the learned single Judge. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012.

Decided On: 03.07.2012

 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society  Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2012,(2012) 8 SCC 706.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page