Specific performance pleadings: plaint may be rejected against non-contracting defendants, and an earlier co-equal Supreme Court ruling remains binding.

In a suit for specific performance, a plaint may be rejected as against particular defendants where the pleadings and contract disclose no agreement or enforceable cause of action against them, even if the suit can continue against other parties. The court noted that specific performance lies only against parties to the contract, and that rejection in such a situation is not an impermissible partial rejection on merits but rejection insofar as those defendants are concerned. It also stated that where co-equal Supreme Court decisions conflict, the earlier decision remains binding unless later distinguished or explained, and the earlier ruling on rejection of plaint against some defendants was followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a plaint in a suit for specific performance can be rejected as against only some defendants when no agreement or cause of action is disclosed against them; (ii) whether, in the face of conflicting co-equal Supreme Court decisions, the earlier decision on rejection of plaint against some defendants should be followed.

Issue (i): whether a plaint in a suit for specific performance can be rejected as against only some defendants when no agreement or cause of action is disclosed against them.

Analysis: The plaint and the agreement showed that only certain defendants had executed the contract, while the revision applicants were not signatories and no pleadings disclosed any agreement or enforceable cause of action against them. In a suit for specific performance, the pleadings must satisfy the statutory requirements and the contract can be specifically enforced only against the parties to it. On these facts, rejection of the plaint as against the applicants was not rejection of a part of the plaint on merits, but rejection of the plaint as a whole insofar as those defendants were concerned.

Conclusion: Yes. The plaint was liable to be rejected as against the applicants.

Issue (ii): whether, in the face of conflicting co-equal Supreme Court decisions, the earlier decision on rejection of plaint against some defendants should be followed.

Analysis: The earlier Supreme Court decision directly dealt with a suit for specific performance and held that a plaint could be rejected as against a defendant against whom no cause of action was disclosed, while the suit could continue against the others. The later co-equal decisions did not refer to or explain that earlier ruling. Where co-equal benches take different views and the later view does not consider the earlier one, the earlier decision retains binding force unless distinguished or explained.

Conclusion: Yes. The earlier Supreme Court decision was treated as binding and followed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the plaint was rejected against the applicants, as the suit could not proceed against them in the absence of any pleaded or contractual basis for specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, if the plaint discloses no agreement or enforceable cause of action against particular defendants, the plaint may be rejected as against those defendants even though the suit may continue against the remaining parties, and an earlier co-equal Supreme Court decision directly on point continues to bind unless later expressly explained or distinguished.

---