C.R. No.6344 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6344 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 03, 2009 Smt. Poonam Goyal and another ...........Petitioners Versus Ramesh Chander Sharma ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.N.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr.Chanakya Pandi, Advocate for the petitioners. -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff-Ramesh Chander filed a suit for specific performance of the contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction and possession. Vide the impugned order dated 1.9.2009, an application filed by the petitioners-defendants for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff had incorrectly pleaded that a licence to launch the colony was granted to M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd. Plaintiffshad relied upon the letter of intent dated 29.12.2005 issued by the C.R. No.6344 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Government of Haryana to M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd. The said letter of intent could not be treated as licence. Licence had been granted on 30.4.2007. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was immediately filed on 27.9.2007. The application had been dismissed on erroneous consideration. The question raised in the application was purely legal and the application was liable to be allowed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on I.T.C Limited vs. Debts Recovery and others (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 70, wherein it was held as under:- "12.The first point here is whether the power to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised even after the framing of issues, and when the matter is posted for evidence. This point has arisen because the Division Bench of the High Court has referred to this aspect while dismissing the appeal. 13. We may state that in the context of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a contention that once issues have been framed, the matter has necessarily to go to trial has been clearly rejected by this Court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (SCC p.324) as follows: (SCC para12) " In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial ..... is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which is difficult to C.R. No.6344 of 2009 (O&M) 3 comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court...." The abovesaid judgment which related to an election petition is clearly applicable to suits also and was followed in Samar Singh vs, Kedar Nath. We,therefore, hold that the fact that issues have been framed in the suit cannot come in the way of consideration of this application filed by the appellant under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 16. The question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint (See T.Arivandandam v T.V.Satyapal)." After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on 20.3.2006. Petitioners appeared on 23.3.2006 and filed the written statement on 27.3.2006. Issues were framed by the trial court on 4.5.2006. Thereafter, plaintiff concluded his evidence and the case was adjourned for defendants evidence. It has been observed in the impugned order that the defendants had availed three opportunities to conclude their evidence but had not led any evidence so far. In the facts and circumstances C.R. No.6344 of 2009 (O&M) 4 of the present case, the learned trial Court rightly held that, at this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice to reject the plaint as the question involved in the present case were mixed questions of law and fact and could be adjudicated only after the parties led their evidence. Moreover, the suit was at the stage of recording the evidence of the defendants and was to be disposed of expeditiously being one of the oldest cases of the said Court. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fails to advance the case of the petitioners. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 03, 2009 arya