K.PALANIAPPAN Vs. DHNALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal Suit is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.73 of 2013 in O.S.No.16 of 2013 and the consequent judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 2013, dtd. 15/4/2014, on the file of the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2013 against the respondents/defendants claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement dtd. 30/12/2009. The defendants have filed their written statement. Pending suit, the defendants have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint in I.A.No.73 of 2013. The plaintiff has filed the counter affidavit denying the averments raised in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.73 of 2013 and raising objections. The learned Additional District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dtd. 15/4/2014, allowing the petition and thereby rejecting the plaint.

(3.) Considering the grounds raised by the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal memorandum, the point that arise for consideration is as to whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint, despite showing that the property shown in the sale agreement and the properties listed out in the plaint are one and the same or different, is a matter for trial.