A first appeal may be summarily dismissed when appellants’ pleadings unequivocally admit the plaintiff’s claim.

The plaintiff obtained a decree for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 28 December 2012, under which the defendants agreed to sell the suit land for ₹1.83 crore, with ₹25 lakh paid in advance.

The sale deed was to be executed after the decision in a pending second appeal and mutation of the defendants’ names in the revenue records; after that appeal was decided in the defendants’ favour, the plaintiff sued for specific performance.

The defendants’ written statement, including that of appellant Kallu, stated that they had not refused to execute the sale deed and remained ready to do so on receipt of the balance consideration; appellant Kamlesh filed no written statement.

After the decree, the appeal was initially brought by four appellants; two withdrew, leaving Kallu and Kamlesh prosecuting it.

The plaintiff applied under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC for summary dismissal.

1. Whether the High Court could dismiss the first appeal summarily under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC where it found the appeal meritless and the appellants’ pleadings admitted the plaintiff’s case.

2. Whether the appellants’ allegations of fraud, inadequate consideration, and other proposed merits-based grounds warranted admission of the appeal despite those pleadings.

Order XLI Rule 11 CPC empowers an appellate court to dismiss an appeal at a preliminary hearing where it is satisfied that the appeal lacks merit; a reasoned order should show that the grounds were considered and found to raise no arguable question.

The court relied on Bolin Chetia v. Jogadish Bhuyan, (2005) 6 SCC 81, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Sheo Narain Kushwaha, (2011) 6 SCC 456, and Saurabh Sharma v. Uma Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 30349, concerning that power.

It also applied the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and evidence cannot be considered contrary to them, relying on Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555, and R.K. Munshi v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 729.

The judgment states that the suit could have been decreed on the admissions under “Order 21 Rule 6 CPC”.

The court treated the written statement’s assertions—that the defendants had not refused performance and remained ready to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration—as admissions of the plaintiff’s claim.

Kamlesh had filed no written statement, while the separate defendant who had contested the claim was not an appellant.

In that context, the appellants’ reliance on alleged fraud, inadequate consideration, and evidentiary matters could not overcome their pleaded admissions; nor could evidence be used to depart from the pleadings.

The court therefore found no arguable basis to admit the appeal.