https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436882 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. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436882 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436882