Karnataka HC Revives Buyer’s Specific-Performance Suit Over 1999 Agreement, Says KHB Act Notice Bar Didn’t Apply As Board Was Only A Formal Party

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 4 June 1999, alleging that Defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell him the suit property and that the Karnataka Housing Board (“KHB”), Defendant No. 2, was joined only as a formal party because it held the original property documents.

KHB applied under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint, contending that the plaintiff had not served the two-month pre-suit notice required by Section 72 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision. The plaintiff challenged both decisions in this second appeal.

1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for failure to give notice under Section 72 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act

2. Whether Section 72 barred the suit where the KHB was joined as a formal party and no relief was sought against it

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC permits rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law. In deciding such an application, the court considers the plaint averments and documents produced with it, rather than the defendant’s case.

Section 72 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 prohibits commencement of a suit against the Board or specified persons for an act done or purportedly done in pursuance of the Act unless two months’ prior written notice is given.

The Court examined the plaint and found that the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance was directed against Defendant No. 1. The plaint described the KHB as a formal party, included because the plaintiff sought to have Defendant No. 1 obtain the original documents from it; it alleged no actionable conduct by the KHB and sought no relief against it.

Since the suit was not brought against the KHB for an act done or purportedly done in pursuance of the Act, the notice requirement in Section 72 did not bar the suit. The plaint therefore could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on that ground.

The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16 November 2026; the Trial Court was asked to dispose of the suit preferably within nine months, and the Registry was directed to refund the full appeal court fee to the appellant.