Plaint lacking proof of readiness and willingness in specific performance suit is liable for rejection.

The plaintiff filed two suits for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated September 24, 2018, regarding plots in Baddi, District Solan, for a total consideration of Rs. 1.60 crores

The plaintiff issued a cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs as earnest money, which was dishonored due to "insufficient funds" on October 29/30, 2018

The plaintiff alleged the cheque was intended only as security and that the defendant failed to obtain necessary HIMUDA permissions for the merger of plots

Defendant No. 2, who purchased the property via a subsequent agreement dated November 28, 2018, moved applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit lacked a cause of action as no consideration was ever paid, making the contract void

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC for failure to disclose a cause of action due to the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness

2. Whether the plaintiff's conduct, specifically the dishonor of the earnest money cheque, disentitles him from seeking the equitable relief of specific performance

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires a plaintiff to prove "readiness" (financial capacity) and "willingness" (conduct/intention) as a condition precedent for specific performance

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, emphasizing the court's duty to nip "sham litigation" in the bud

Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, which established that time stipulations are significant in property contracts due to price volatility

The Court conducted a "meaningful reading" of the plaint in conjunction with the agreement to sell. It found that while the plaintiff claimed the earnest money cheque was mere security, the written agreement contained no such stipulation, indicating a false plea and a lack of "clean hands"

Applying Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the court noted that "readiness" refers to the availability of funds; the fact that the initial earnest money cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds proved the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity from the inception of the contract

The Court reasoned that since the plaintiff failed to pay even a "single penny" and could not honor the advance payment, there was no enforceable cause of action for specific performance

Following the doctrine in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the court concluded that the suit was a result of "clever drafting" to create an illusion of a cause of action where none existed

The applications under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC were allowed, and the plaints in Civil Suits No. 44 & 45/2024 were rejected. All interim orders were vacated