Pleading scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot decide disputed facts in a specific performance suit; plaint rejection was set aside.

In a suit for specific performance, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by comparing disputed facts beyond the plaint and its accompanying documents. The Court held that differences between the property description in the agreement and in the plaint, objections based on the defendant's written statement, the plaintiff's conduct, and alleged non-compliance with contractual terms are matters for trial. It also reaffirmed that rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 must be of the plaint as a whole, not in part. As the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the limitation objection did not justify rejection on the trial court's approach, the rejection was unsustainable and the suit had to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint in a suit for specific performance could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the property description in the plaint differed from the agreement, that the suit allegedly lacked cause of action, and that the limitation defence or other factual objections required rejection.

Analysis: In deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it can be examined. The defence taken in the written statement, disputed questions about whether the properties in the agreement and plaint are identical, and objections relating to the plaintiff's conduct or alleged non-compliance with contractual terms are matters for trial. The Court also reiterated that if part of the plaint may be connected to the agreement, the plaint cannot be rejected in part, since rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 must be of the plaint as a whole. The alleged want of cause of action was not made out on the plaint averments, and the limitation objection did not justify rejection in the manner adopted by the trial court.

Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint was unsustainable and had to be set aside; the dispute was required to proceed to trial.

---