THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 935 OF 2010 Dated: 17.11.2011 Between : Smt. P.Lahiri … Petitioner And M/s. Aliens Developer (P) Ltd … Respondent The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 935 OF 2010 ORDER: The order dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar rejecting the plaint (O.S.S.R.No.17845 of 2009) for want of cause of action is assailed in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and perused the material available on record. The suit (O.S.S.R. No.17845 of 2009) was filed with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decree the plaintiffs suit with costs as under: a) A decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- (Three crores seventy five lakhs only) from the person and property of the defendant in pursuance of specific performance of an agreement of sale dt. 9th day of January 2008 and on such recovery the same be paid to the plaintiff. b) A decree for the an interest @ 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the suit amount from the person and property of the defendant herein. c) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled may be awarded.” The plaintiff, who claims to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land states that at the instance of the defendant an agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 09.01.2008. Pursuant thereto, the defendant paid Rs.50,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance in nine installments as per the schedule stipulated in the agreement. It is alleged that after paying six installments the defendant failed to pay the balance sale consideration. In spite of several reminders and demands made by the plaintiff, since the defendant failed to respond and on the other hand, demanded return of the amounts already paid and attempted to recover the said amount by taking law into their hands, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 26.08.2009 calling upon the defendant to complete the sale transaction. Though the said notice was received, the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff got issued another notice dated 17.09.2009 calling upon the defendant to get the sale deed executed forthwith by paying the balance sale consideration stating that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. In response to the same, the defendant got issued a reply notice dated 07.10.2009 making all false allegations. The plaintiff replied explaining the true and correct facts and expressing her willingness to perform her part of contract. Since the defendant failed to respond, the plaintiff filed the suit with the above prayer i.e., recovery of the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,75,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaint was returned by the office raising two objections namely (1) how the suit is maintainable for balance sale consideration by the vendor without suing for specific performance of agreement and (2) how the suit is maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement. The plaint was represented by the plaintiff explaining the objections and at her request, the matter was heard by the Court. So far as the objection as to the maintainability of the suit in view of the arbitration clause is concerned, having regard to the wording in the arbitration clause, the Court below overruled the objection raised by the office. However, the objection No.1 regarding the maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff/vendor for balance sale consideration without seeking specific performance of the agreement is concerned, it was held by the Court below and accordingly it was concluded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further held that as the plaintiff failed to make out cause of action for the said suit the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC. Accordingly the plaint was rejected. So far as the Court fee of Rs.3,75,000/- paid on the suit claim is concerned, it was observed that Section 63 of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 did not empower the Court to order refund of the Court fee in case where the plaint is rejected for want of cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.01.2010 the present Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and perused the material available on record. There can be no dispute with regard to the legal position that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) does not enable the vendor/owner of the property to sue for balance sale consideration alone without seeking specific performance. It is also true that the plaint is liable to be rejected under clause (a) if it does not disclose a cause of action. In the instant case, the plaintiff admittedly continues in possession of the suit schedule property and her claim is only for balance sale consideration payable by the defendant under the agreement of sale dated 07.01.2008. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff did not ask for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Therefore, as the Court below has rightly upheld the office objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit. However, the conclusion of the Court below that Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC is attracted and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected does not appear to be logical. When the suit itself is not properly framed, the question of making out a cause of action does not arise. Since the Court below has upheld the office objection that the suit for recovery of balance sale consideration in the absence of prayer for specific performance is not maintainable, the proper course would have been to return the plaint to enable the plaintiff to resubmit the plaint in accordance with the legal position clarified by the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11A being erroneous, the order under revision to that extent is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to return the plaint in O.S.(SR).No.17845 of 2009 granting time to the plaintiff to resubmit the plaint in proper form. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date:17.11.2011 Klp/Ivd