Delhi HC Rejects Plaint Over Lack of Concluded Agreement, Readiness to Perform Not Proved

A Division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar heard an appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, challenging a Single Judge’s order dated 24.12.2025 which had rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell immovable property.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the threshold rejection of the plaint, holding that the material on record did not disclose a concluded and enforceable Agreement to Sell nor did it establish the plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness to perform. The Court noted precedent that "clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law" and emphasised that specific performance was an equitable remedy that could not be granted on vague or uncorroborated assertions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the foregoing, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances clearly establishes that the plaint does not disclose the existence of any concluded Agreement to Sell between the parties. The contemporaneous record relied upon by the Appellant itself contradicts the plea of a concluded agreement, and where the conduct suggests an attempt to prolong and negotiate rather than perform, the invocation of specific performance is wholly misconceived." The bench found that the contemporaneous documents  a unilateral receipt and WhatsApp exchanges  demonstrated ongoing negotiation rather than consensus ad idem, and that the appellant’s refund of earnest money further undermined a claim for specific performance.

Background

The appellant instituted CS (OS) 871/2024 seeking declaration that a communication dated 16.03.2024 terminating an alleged oral Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023 was invalid and sought specific performance for the sale of Second Floor, B‑1/17 Vasant Vihar for Rs. 12.40 crores. The appellant alleged payment of Rs. 51 lakhs as earnest money and asserted that the respondent undertook to secure vacant possession and execute the sale deed by stipulated dates. Notices to tenants and repeated assurances led the appellant to grant time extensions; possession was not delivered and the respondent refunded the earnest money after purportedly terminating the agreement for delay.

The Single Judge dismissed the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding absence of a cause of action and that the claim was barred under Sections 16(b) and 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for failure to prima facie establish readiness and willingness. The appellant provided additional communications and banker correspondence, and mediation was attempted but failed. On appeal, the High Court reviewed the plaint and the documents relied upon, applying the settled standard that under Order VII Rule 11 the court must read the plaint meaningfully and reject claims that are manifestly vexatious or do not disclose a clear right to sue.

The bench analysed precedents including T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and ITC Ltd. v. DRAT on the scope of Order VII Rule 11, and Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi on the prerequisites for specific performance. The Court found the purported instrument dated 29.10.2023 to be, in truth, a unilateral acknowledgment lacking signatures of the plaintiff and the essential attributes of a bilateral contract. WhatsApp exchanges showed the parties still negotiating terms in mid‑November 2023. The Court held that granting specific performance on such record would amount to the Court making a contract for the parties. The bench concluded that the suit appeared aimed at clouding title and imposing avoidable litigation on the respondent, and therefore dismissed the appeal and any pending applications, with no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA(OS) 4/2026 & CM APPL. 4597/2026, 4599/2026
Case Title: Pradeep Batra v Kuldip Singh Verma
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Viraj Datar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms. Shivangi Nanda, Mr. Arsh Rampal and Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Kaushik, Mr. Vikas Ashwani, Mr. Mainak Sarkar and Ms. Aparna Kushwah, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 153