Subsequent Alienation and Determinable Clause Requiring Factual Determination Preclude Rejection of Plaint at Threshold Stage

The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against Defendant No. 1 and joint owners (Defendants 2-7).

Defendant No. 1 entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.08.2025 (ATS-1) with Defendants 2-7 for the "Suit Property".

Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 entered into another Agreement to Sell dated 25.08.2025 (ATS-2) with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleged he paid Rs. 4.25 Crores, a portion of which was encashed by Defendant No. 3.

During the pendency of the suit, the Defendants executed sale deeds in favor of third-party purchasers (Defendants 9-11).

The Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to include the subsequent purchasers and challenge the new sale deeds.

The Defendants orally opposed the suit’s maintainability, citing lack of privity, expiration of the ATS, and determinability of the contract.

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be allowed in light of subsequent developments.

2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of cause of action, privity of contract, or the determinable nature of the agreement.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as interpreted in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, establishing that amendments should be allowed if imperative for effective adjudication and if they do not fundamentally change the nature of the suit.

It relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments before trial.

Regarding Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court followed Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, which restricts the inquiry to the face of the plaint.

Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the rights of a "representative-in-interest".

Section 14(d) regarding determinable contracts.

The Court first addressed the amendment application, holding that it must be decided before the plea for rejection of the plaint.

It found the amendments necessary because the execution of sale deeds in favor of third parties occurred after the suit was filed, and refusing the amendment would lead to multiplicity of litigation.

The Court found that the Plaintiff's plea of "assignment of rights" and his status as a "nominee" under ATS-1 (Clause 17) created a triable issue regarding privity.

Regarding determinability under Section 14(d), the Court noted that Clause 15 of ATS-1 required "unavoidable circumstances," which is a question of fact requiring evidence.

Whether the ATS expired by efflux of time was deemed a triable issue because the parties continued to exchange draft deeds well after the alleged expiry dates.

The Court rejected the Defendants' oral objection to the maintainability of the suit, holding that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action and raised mixed questions of fact and law that cannot be decided without a trial.

Summons were issued to the Defendants, and they were directed to file written statements within thirty days.