Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Reject Injunction Suit at Threshold; Holds Bar Under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act Requires Trial and Cannot Be Decided Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Case Name: Mohan Magotra v. M/s Ujjala Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CR-8219-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition and upheld the trial court’s refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the question whether a suit for permanent injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, on account of availability of an equally efficacious remedy of specific performance, involves disputed questions of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. The Court reiterated that issues relating to enforceability, certainty, and nature of contractual documents must ordinarily be examined at trial.

Summary: The revision petition arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third-party rights in agricultural land, based on a binding term sheet executed between the parties. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, contending that the plaintiff had an equally efficacious remedy of specific performance. It was also argued that the term sheet was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, that no part consideration had been paid, and that one of the defendants was not a signatory to the term sheet.

The High Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reiterated that at the stage of deciding an application for rejection of plaint, only the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered, without embarking upon an enquiry into disputed facts or evidentiary matters. The Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded existence of a binding arrangement, part performance, and an imminent threat of alienation, thereby disclosing a cause of action.

The Court further observed that whether the term sheet was vague, unenforceable, or merely an agreement to enter into a future agreement, and whether Defendant No.1 was authorised to bind Defendant No.2, were all matters requiring detailed factual and evidentiary adjudication. These issues could not be conclusively determined without a full trial.

On the objection based on Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court held that the availability of specific performance as an alternative remedy does not automatically bar a suit for injunction at the threshold. The determination of whether such remedy is “equally efficacious” depends upon multiple factual considerations and cannot be summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly when the plaintiff has reserved the right to seek specific performance subject to leave of the Court.

The Court distinguished earlier precedents relied upon by the petitioner, holding that those cases were decided after trial and not at the stage of plaint rejection.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The impugned order refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was upheld. The Court clarified that all observations were confined to the limited scope of the revision petition and would not affect adjudication on merits at trial.