Order VII Rule 11 CPC and specific performance pleadings: incomplete authority and missing foundational facts justified rejection of the plaint.

A plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when, on its own averments, it fails to disclose a complete cause of action or otherwise meets a statutory ground for rejection. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead all material facts, including the contractual basis of the claim, the relevant agreement, and the authority of any alleged agent or power of attorney holder. Here, the pleadings were deficient because the authority to execute the agreement for sale was not properly shown or produced, and the foundational facts were missing. The plaint was therefore rightly rejected against the first defendant, and the appellate reversal could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the first defendant so as to survive scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaint complied with the pleading and document-production requirements governing a suit for specific performance.

Analysis: The decisive test under Order VII Rule 11 is confined to the averments in the plaint, and the Court must reject a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action or otherwise attracts the statutory grounds for rejection. In a suit for specific performance, the plaint must set out all material facts, including the basis of the alleged contractual right, the relevant agreement, and the authority of the alleged agent or power of attorney holder. The pleadings here were found deficient because the plaint did not disclose a complete cause of action against the first defendant, did not properly plead or produce the alleged agreement holder's authority, and did not satisfy the statutory pleading requirements reflected in Order VII Rule 14 and the prescribed forms for specific performance. The Court also held that the power of attorney was not shown to authorise execution of the agreement for sale, and that specific performance being a discretionary remedy, the absence of foundational facts was fatal at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be rejected as against the first defendant, and the appellate reversal of that rejection was unsustainable.

---