Supreme Court Restores Suit for Specific Performance in Delhi Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs v. Baldev Raj Walia & Anr., reinstated a civil suit for specific performance that had been dismissed by lower courts on procedural grounds. The Court ruled that the suit, initially rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), was maintainable and should be decided on its merits.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, set aside previous rulings by the Delhi High Court and the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolved around a property transaction involving a house in Sanwar Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff, Sucha Singh, claimed that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from the respondent, Baldev Raj Walia, in 1996. The plaintiff had allegedly paid an advance sum and was in possession of the property.

Key developments in the case:

• In 1996, Sucha Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction to prevent his dispossession from the property.
• In 1998, he withdrew the suit, stating that he intended to file appropriate proceedings for relief.
• In 1999, he filed a new suit for specific performance of the 1996 agreement.
• The trial court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that it was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
• The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff’s second suit for specific performance was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
• Whether the withdrawal of the previous suit without specific liberty to file a fresh suit affected the maintainability of the subsequent suit.
• Whether the plaintiff’s cause of action in the two suits was distinct.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments (Sucha Singh Sodhi’s LRs)

The appellants contended:

• The earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, whereas the second suit sought specific performance of the contract.
• The cause of action for seeking injunction (threat of dispossession) was different from that for specific performance (enforcement of contract).
• Since the plaintiff withdrew the previous suit before trial, it did not preclude him from filing a new suit for a different relief.
• The courts below erred in applying Order 2 Rule 2 CPC to bar the suit.

Respondents’ Arguments (Baldev Raj Walia & Anr.)

The respondents countered:

• The plaintiff ought to have claimed specific performance in the first suit.
• Withdrawal of the first suit without explicit permission to file a fresh suit barred the new claim.
• The trial court and High Court correctly applied Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts’ reasoning and reinstated the suit.

Cause of Action and Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2

The Court clarified that Order 2 Rule 2 applies only when the cause of action in both suits is the same. It observed:

“The cause of action for claiming permanent injunction and for claiming specific performance of an agreement are independent and distinct. One cannot include the other and vice versa.”

Right to File a Fresh Suit

The Court emphasized that withdrawing the previous suit did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking specific performance:

“Where a plaintiff omits to sue for a claim available at the time of an earlier suit, Order 2 Rule 2 may bar a subsequent suit. However, where the reliefs arise from different causes of action, the rule does not apply.”

Precedents Relied Upon

The Court referred to Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) and Gurinderpal v. Jagmittar Singh (2004) to establish that separate claims for injunction and specific performance do not trigger Order 2 Rule 2.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The appeal was allowed.
• The Delhi High Court and trial court orders were set aside.
• The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
• The suit for specific performance was reinstated and directed to be decided on merits.

Implications of the Judgment

• The ruling clarifies that claims for injunction and specific performance can be pursued separately.
• It prevents defendants from using procedural technicalities to dismiss genuine claims.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that withdrawal of a suit does not automatically bar a fresh suit for a different cause of action.
• The decision ensures that litigants are not unfairly deprived of their legal remedies due to procedural misinterpretations.

This ruling marks a significant clarification in property litigation, ensuring that rightful claims for specific performance are not dismissed on technical grounds.

Petitioner Name: Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs.
Respondent Name: Baldev Raj Walia & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 13-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sucha Singh Sodhi (D vs Baldev Raj Walia & A Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category