NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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