Ready and Willing, but Late? Rejection of Plaint, Mid-Trial Amendment and Interim Relief
In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavnagar, the plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 2025 on 12 February 2025 for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 5 June 2021 concerning agricultural land at Vallabhipur. Total consideration is Rs. 15,00,000; the plaintiff paid Rs. 7,00,000 as earnest money and pleads that on 25 June 2022 he tendered the balance of Rs. 8,00,000 in cash at the defendant's residence, but the defendant refused to accept it and refused to execute the sale deed. The plaint recites continuous readiness and willingness. The defendant has applied under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, contending that (i) the plaintiff has not claimed possession or mesne profits, so the suit omits a necessary relief, and (ii) the suit is barred by Article 54 of the Limitation Act because it was filed more than three years after the date fixed for performance, namely 30 June 2022. After framing of issues but before any evidence was led, the plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 17 to add a prayer for possession and mesne profits. An ex parte interim injunction restraining alienation is operating.
1. Should the plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground of limitation, and does the absence of a possession prayer attract Rule 11(a)?
Read the worked answer
The application fails on both limbs.
Order VII Rule 11(d) permits rejection only where the statement in the plaint itself shows the suit to be barred by law. Limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be tried on averments and affidavits at the threshold. On the plaint's own case: (i) the agreement fixed 30 June 2022 for performance, and three years from that date expires on 30 June 2025, so the suit of 12 February 2025 is in time even on the defendant's own starting point; (ii) independently, the plaintiff pleads a specific refusal on 25 June 2022, and Article 54 fixes the starting point as the date fixed for performance or, where no date is fixed, the date of notice of refusal. Either way the suit is within time.
The argument that the plaintiff slept for over two years is a plea about conduct, relevant to Section 16(c) and to the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, not a ground for rejection of the plaint.
On limb (a), Rule 11(a) is directed at a plaint that discloses no cause of action. The cause of action here is the agreement and its breach. The absence of a possession prayer is a defect of relief, addressed by Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act at the stage of relief and curable by amendment. Reject the application with costs.
2. How should the application under Order VI Rule 17 be dealt with, given that issues are framed but no evidence has been recorded?
Read the worked answer
Allow the amendment, with costs.
The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 bars an amendment after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. Here only issues have been framed; not a single witness has been examined. The Explanation inserted in 1999, which deemed trial to commence on framing of issues, was omitted in 2002, and the prevailing view is that trial commences when evidence begins. Even on the stricter view, the plaintiff's explanation is acceptable: the need for a possession prayer became acute only after the defendant's application raised the point.
Substantively, the amendment does not change the character of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. Possession flows from the very same agreement, and Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires it to be claimed in the same suit, a separate suit being barred. The defendant can be compensated in costs, and any prejudice can be met by permitting consequential additional pleadings and, if necessary, additional issues. The plaintiff must pay the additional court fee on the relief of possession under the Court Fees Act as applied in Gujarat. Grant the amendment and call for the additional court fee before the amended plaint is taken on record.
3. The defendant argues that the interim injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff delayed from June 2022 to February 2025. How should the court deal with the interim relief?
Read the worked answer
Interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 rests on three tests: a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and it remains discretionary.
The prima facie case rests on a registered agreement and a pleaded tender of the balance; the refusal is at least not admitted. Delay is a real factor, but it operates on the balance of convenience and on the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, not as an automatic bar. What the plaintiff did or omitted between June 2022 and February 2025, and whether the defendant dealt with the land in that period, must be examined.
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not by itself justify restraining alienation: pendency of the suit merely makes a later transfer subject to the decree, and the three tests must still be applied. Since the apprehended mischief is a sale to a third party who would complicate the relief, the appropriate order is not a blanket restraint but an order of status quo on title, with a direction to the defendant to disclose any agreement or conveyance already made and liberty to either side to apply. Because readiness and willingness must be continuous, the court may also require the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration in court as a condition of continuation of relief.