Rajasthan HC Lets Buyer’s Specific-Performance Suit Over JDA-Acquired Land Proceed, As Acquisition Alone Doesn’t Resolve Contract Dispute

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and consequential injunctions, alleging agreements dated 18 September 2018 and 24 May 2019 for land in Khasra No. 330, and payment of part of the agreed consideration.

He alleged that the defendants failed to obtain and transfer residential and commercial pattas from the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), and pleaded readiness and willingness to perform his obligations.

The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, contending, among other things, that the land had been acquired by the JDA and the plaint disclosed no enforceable cause of action. The trial court dismissed that application; the petitioners challenged the dismissal in revision.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection of a plaint only on the grounds specified in that rule.

In deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by law, the court must meaningfully read the plaint as a whole and ordinarily consider the plaintiff’s pleadings, not the defence; it must not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed factual matters at the threshold.

The existence of a pleaded cause of action is distinct from the plaintiff’s eventual entitlement to relief.

Under Section 115 CPC, revision is limited to correcting the jurisdictional errors specified by the provision and is not an appeal or a rehearing on the merits.

The judgment cites no specific precedent.

The plaint pleaded the agreements, substantial payments, the defendants’ alleged obligations concerning the pattas, breach, and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness; taken at face value, those assertions disclosed a cause of action.

Although acquisition by the JDA could affect the plaintiff’s claimed rights, the suit did not directly challenge the acquisition. Whether the arrangement was legally permissible, the defendants had authority to perform it, or specific performance could lawfully be granted depended on the agreements, the land’s legal status, and applicable statutory provisions—questions not conclusively resolved by relying on the defence at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

The trial court therefore committed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity by declining to reject the plaint.

It left the validity and enforceability of the agreements, the legal status of the land, and the plaintiff’s ultimate entitlement to specific performance open for independent determination at trial.