2025:JHHC:24296 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 304 of 2025 ------ Pratap Pandey, son fo Late Prasunendu Chandra Pandey, resident of 14/10 Gariahat Road, P.O. Gariahat, P.S. Gariahat, District Kolkata through its power of attorney, Vivekanand Mandal, son of Late Arabind Kumar Mandal, resident of Gokulpur, Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Nitu Singh, wife of Bimlendra Kumar Singh, resident of Kalibari Road, Rajpara, P.O. and P.S. Rajpara, District Pakur 2. Harinarayan Das, son of Late Anil Baran Das, resident of Rajbari Road, P.O. and P.S. Rajbari, District Pakur .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Order No.07 / Dated : 19.08.2025 Petitioner/Defendant is before this Court against the order passed in MCA No.22 of 2024 by which the petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract with respect to agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 06.10.2019 with respect to the land measuring an area 45 Bighas, 07 Kathas, 10 Dhoor. Petitioner filed the petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to purchase the suit premise and there was no evidence of fact that the plaintiff had sufficient fund at the time of agreement or during contractual period of the said agreement to meet the total consideration amount which was payable to the defendant no.1. As per the agreement of sale, the sale deed was to be executed between 06.10.2019 to 11.10.2021. Plaintiff to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated period and therefore the suit for specific performance of contract was not maintainable. 3. Learned trial Court rejected the petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the issues raised were triable issues and defence 2025:JHHC:24296 2 could not be considered while deciding a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 4. In the argument learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner appears to have abandoned the earlier plea at the trial court regarding absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and another plea has been raised. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that it will be apparent from para-9 of the plaint that agreement of sale was terminated vide letter date 21.12.2021. The service of notice has been acknowledged in para 10 of the plaint, wherein it has been stated that reply to the said cancellation was sent by the plaintiff. Agreement of sale having been terminated by a letter, it was incumbent on the part of the Plaintiff to have sought for the relief for declaration of the said cancellation agreement to be bad in law. In the absence of any declaratory relief to that effect, the suit of specific performance of contract was not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sangita Sinha Vs. Bhawana Bhardwaj & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 723, wherein it has been held that it was incumbent on the part of the predecessor to have sought for a declaration for the cancellation to be bad in law. In the absence of such a prayer, suit was not maintainable. 5. It is further argued that it is too late in the day to seek new plea of amendment by inserting this prayer as it will be barred by limitation. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of plaintiff that the agreement of sale executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the plaintiff has nowhere been disputed. It has also not been disputed that in terms of the said agreement, Rs.11,00,000/- was paid as an earnest money to the defendant. The terms of agreement inter alia provides in para 2 and 5, that registration of aforementioned lands was stopped by the registering authority and therefore, it was agreed by the defendants that the sale deed will be executed and registered part by part in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance consideration amount during the period from 06.10.2019 to 11.10.2021. As a matter of fact, ban from registration was lifted after filing of the suit. 2025:JHHC:24296 3 7. In the trial Court, the plea which is being raised, here had not been raised and the ground on which the rejection of plaint was sought for, was that there was absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. This is a question of fact and cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint. 8. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent, that agreement to sell has not been denied, nor there is any dispute with regard to payment of earnest money of Rupees Eleven Lakhs. Plea of absence of readiness and willingness although pressed for rejection of plaint, has been rightly dismissed as this is a triable issue that can be adjudicated upon and cannot be the basis for rejection of the plaint. 9. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot Act as an appellate or revisional court. It has been held in Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87 that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. 10. Whether a plaint discloses a cause or action or not is essentially a question of fact and is to be gathered from the plaint. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety a decree would be passed. The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” has to be very narrowly construed. The rejection of the plaint at the thrash-hold entails very serious consequences. This power therefore, has to be used in exceptional circumstances only when the court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have any arguable case at all. It has been held in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs Syed Jalal, AIR 2017 SC 2653 that an application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of the suit on the basis of averments of the plaint only. Power should be exercised in 2025:JHHC:24296 4 case of a suit manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue- Conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC have to be strictly adhered to. 11. Coming to the case at hand, case hinges on the plea raised at bar at this stage that no relief has been sought for declaring the cancellation of agreement bad in law. At the outset, it need to be noted that authority relied upon is not the question of rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 12. Further, in the said case, the Apex Court had noted that the plaintiff had concealed the material facts regarding unilateral cancellation of agreement of sale and also it was concealed that the payment had been refunded by drawing a cheque in favour of the plaintiff. This was also considered as one of the factor for holding the suit to be not maintainable. The present case does not suffer from any such material suppression, as it will be evident from the plaint in para 12 and 19 that there is specific averment with regard to the unilateral cancellation of the agreement to sell. The plea of not seeking a declaratory relief was not even been raised in the trial court where, and therefore the issue of maintainability cannot be raised for the first time before this court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 13. Under the circumstance this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit