IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5012 of 2008(V) ------------------------- OS.589/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SALIL GUPTA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ESWAR CHANDRA GUPTA, D 12A,CHACKOLAS HABITATE THEVARA (P.O), PIN-682 013, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT: ------------- JAISON MATHEW,AGED 42,S/O.MATHEW,R/AT NADUVILEKANDOTHUPARAMBIL,CHORAPPILLY,MULAVUKADU DESOM & VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DIST. REP.BY HIS WIFE & GUARDIAN SMT.SINI,SCHOOL TEACHER RESIDING AT NADUVILEKANDOTHUPARAMBIL, CHORAPPILLY, MULAVUKADU DESOM & VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,EKM.DT BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 5012/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 589/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN OS 589/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30.5.07 IN OS 589/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P4. COPY OF THE DECREE DT. 30.5.07 IN OS 589/06 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5012 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the judgment and decree in OS 589/06 whereby the court had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code. Under ordinary circumstances, this court would not have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But here it is a case where the court has not followed the procedure, which is contemplated under law, and therefore it has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which requires interference at the hands of this court. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract and the court below held that even though the readiness on the side of defendants plaintiff has not taken any steps for the performance of contract. The relief sought is only for execution of a sale deed. These are matters wherein a suit for specific performance of contract is involved, the court has to find out whether the plaintiff was was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and who has committed breach of contract and further permitting to frame issues to try the case. The WPC NO 5012/08 2 court without adverting to any of these procedural formalities rejected the plaint, which appears to be grossly irregular and it requires interference at the hands of this court. I set aside the judgment and decree passed by the court below whereby the plaint is rejected and direct the court to restore the plaint back to file and dispose it of in accordance with law after framing proper issues and permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence. The court shall also endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 1.4.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5012/08 3 WPC NO 5012/08 4