Boyenepally Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy - CPC - Rejection Of Plaint - Specific Performance Suit
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Where out of many reliefs claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff is found entitled to even one of them, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In such circumstances, the suit must be tried on the basis of evidence led by the parties - Referred to Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs. Mahaveer Lunia 2025 INSC 772. (Para 10)
Specific Relief Act 1963 - In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff can always claim or be entitled to refund of the advance amount as decreed in his favor, based upon the evidence on record. (Para 8)
Case Info
Case Name
Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy & Ors.
Coram
- Justice Vikram Nath
- Justice Sandeep Mehta
Judgment Date
- July 29, 2025 [Uploaded on 10 September 2025]
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited
- Citation: (2018) 11 SCC 780
- Principle: Partial rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not permissible; if any relief survives, the plaint must proceed to trial.
- Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors.
- Citation: 2025 INSC 95
- Principle: Even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
- Citation: 2025 INSC 772
- Principle: At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the plaint’s averments and not the merits; triable issues prevent summary rejection.
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
- Order XXIII Rule 3A, CPC
- Section 19, Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Section 17(3), SARFAESI Act (mentioned in cited case law)
- Section 34, SARFAESI Act (mentioned in cited case law)