Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Only the Averments in the Plaint Would be Relevant: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Review Order in Eldeco Housing Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today set aside a High Court order that had dismissed a suit for specific performance involving Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited and others. The apex court’s decision hinged on the principle that for considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C., “only the averments in the plaint would be relevant,” a standard that was not met in the High Court’s review.

The dispute centered around a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31.08.1998 regarding the sale of property. The appellant, Eldeco Housing, had filed a suit against respondent Ashok Vidyarthi, following attempts by the latter to sell the property to third parties. The initial suit sought to prevent the creation of third-party rights over the property, whereas the subsequent suit aimed for the specific performance of the MoU post-resolution of family litigation.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, in delivering the judgment, noted that the High Court erroneously allowed the review application leading to the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court underscored that for the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, the court should only consider the plaint’s averments, without looking into any additional evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision has shed light on the nuanced application of procedural law, particularly in the context of property disputes and contractual obligations. The ruling clarifies the parameters within which courts should evaluate applications for rejection of a plaint, emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to the contents of the plaint itself.

The case has been remanded for trial, with the Supreme Court providing the Trial Court with the discretion to treat the issue of the suit’s maintainability as preliminary. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications on how courts interpret and apply procedural laws in civil litigation.

Date of Decision: November 30, 2023

Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited VS Ashok Vidyarthi and Others

Latest Legal News