Interim possession in specific performance was refused, but restraint on transfer was maintained and defendant impleadment upheld.

Interim possession in a specific performance suit was refused because the allotment letter had not been shown to have matured into a concluded contract; essential terms, including final price and additional charges, were still unsettled, so the plaintiff had not established a strong prima facie case or special equity for a receiver. The Court nevertheless preserved the property by restraining alienation, mortgage, or creation of third-party interests during the suit. On the pleadings, the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant No. 2, because specific averments linked him to the alleged cancellation and frustration of rights; at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, those allegations had to be taken as pleaded. The request to reject the plaint or delete defendant No. 2 was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled, at the interlocutory stage, to appointment of a receiver and to be put in possession of the flat in a suit for specific performance on the basis of the allotment letter and surrounding documents; (ii) Whether the plaint disclosed no cause of action against defendant No. 2 so as to justify rejection of the plaint or deletion of his name from the array of parties.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled, at the interlocutory stage, to appointment of a receiver and to be put in possession of the flat in a suit for specific performance on the basis of the allotment letter and surrounding documents.

Analysis: The claim for immediate possession depended upon whether the allotment letter had ripened into a concluded contract capable of specific performance. The Court found that the essential terms, including the final price and additional charges, were not shown to have been finally settled and that the parties were not clearly ad idem. In a suit for specific performance, possession is not ordinarily granted at an interim stage unless a strong prima facie case and special equity are shown. On the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish waste, dissipation, or other irreparable mischief justifying a receiver. At the same time, the Court found it necessary to preserve the property during pendency of the suit by maintaining restraint against alienation or encumbrance.

Conclusion: The prayer for appointment of a receiver and for delivery of possession was declined, but the interim injunction restraining transfer, sale, mortgage, or creation of third-party interest was confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint disclosed no cause of action against defendant No. 2 so as to justify rejection of the plaint or deletion of his name from the array of parties.

Analysis: The plaint contained specific averments attributing responsibility to defendant No. 2 in relation to the alleged cancellation and frustration of the plaintiff's rights, and reliefs were also sought against him. For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments are relevant, and their truthfulness or ultimate success is not to be tested at that stage. The Court also noted that the plaintiff was entitled to implead persons against whom relief was claimed so that the controversy could be effectively adjudicated. On the plaint as filed, a cause of action against defendant No. 2 was disclosed.

Conclusion: The application for rejection of the plaint and for deletion of defendant No. 2 was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory relief was granted only to the limited extent of preserving the property, while the stronger prayers for receiver-based possession and for striking out defendant No. 2 were refused.

---