ABHA GARG Vs. UMESH NAGORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two civil revisions filed under Section 115 of the CPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit Nos.7-A/14 and 6-A/14, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC have been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff Shri Umesh Nagori had filed a civil suit against the present petitioners Smt. Abha Garg and Shri Anil Garg for specific performance of contract bearing Civil Suit Nos. 6-A & 7-A of 2014. The respondent plaintiff Shri Umesh Nagori has prayed for registration of the suit land in his name and also prayed for permanent injunction and damages. It was alleged that the petitioners had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent plaintiff, Shri Nagori, who wanted to purchase the suit land and hence, on the same day six memoranda of understanding (MOUs) were executed by the petitioner No.1 Smt. Abha Garg in favour of the plaintiff Shri Umesh Nagori being MOUs contained the necessary conditions of the prospective agreement that was to take place in future. It was however, categorically mentioned that the separate agreement for sale corresponding to each of MOUs would be executed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the facts that the order of rejection of the said application was contrary to the provisions of law and the agreement was never in existence, and merely filing the MOUs specific performance cannot be claimed. Counsel submitted that the order was passed on improper assimilation of facts. Besides considering the fact that the notice had been sent by the petitioners according to reply to the notice by the respondent plaintiff; he submitted that there was a clear admission that performance of other mutual obligations under the said MOUs depends entirely on the execution of the formal agreement and agreement has never been executed then in this light the MOUs also have no relevance. The suit being filed on the strength of MOUs to enter into a prosepective agreement are, therefore, not maintainable. He placed reliance in the matter of Speech and Software Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Neos Interactive Ltd., 2009 3 MPLJ 1, whereby the Apex Court considering the specific relief act and the agreement under Section 14 held that, it is well settled legal position that an agreement to enter into an other agreement is not enforceable; nor does it confer any right upon the parties; then it could not be said that such an agreement was executed between the parties at all since bare reading of MOUs leads to the fact that an agreement to enter into another agreement is called for; and such an agreement is not enforceable nor does it give any right to any of the parties. And Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside on these grounds alone and the application of the petitioner under order VII Rule 11 be allowed and the suit filed by the respondent No.1 Umesh Nagori be dismissed.