Order 7 Rule 11 scrutiny of plaint averments can sustain a specific performance claim where essential contract terms are pleaded.

In assessing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are material and they must be accepted at face value without a detailed inquiry into disputed facts or law. On that footing, pleadings alleging execution of a memorandum of understanding, payment and acceptance of earnest money, extension of time, demands for performance, and readiness and willingness to perform disclosed a triable cause of action. The memorandum was said to contain the essential terms of the bargain, including the property, consideration and payment mode, and the conduct of the parties supported a concluded arrangement capable of specific performance. Rejection of the plaint was therefore treated as unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action so as to withstand rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the memorandum of understanding constituted a legally enforceable agreement capable of specific performance.

Analysis: In deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are relevant and they must be taken at face value. The court is not to embark upon a detailed enquiry into disputed questions of fact or law at that stage. The plaint pleaded the execution of the memorandum of understanding, the agreed sale consideration, the payment and acceptance of earnest money, extension of time, repeated demands for performance, and the respondent's readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. The memorandum contained the essential terms of the bargain, namely the property, consideration, and mode of payment. A reference to satisfaction regarding the title documents did not make the arrangement a mere proposal, and the conduct of the parties, including receipt of part consideration, supported the existence of a concluded arrangement.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and the memorandum of understanding was treated as a legally enforceable agreement; rejection of the plaint was unwarranted and the appeal failed.

---