Authority: Supreme Court of India
Order Date: September 29, 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. (Appellants) vs. J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr. (Respondents).
- The appeal challenges a decree for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for sale of immovable property, originally decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
- The plaintiff relied on an oral contract, arguing that no law requires a written agreement for sale of immovable property, but that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a concluded contract and its essential terms.
- The plaintiff contended that the earlier suit for injunction simpliciter was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, invoking Order II Rule 2 CPC; the respondent argued the withdrawal did not constitute such liberty and that the second suit was barred.
- Key factual points examined:
- Advance payments: Rs 5,11,000 cash and Rs 5 crore by cheque dated 11‑01‑2007.
- Total consideration agreed: Rs 20,50,00,000 (later increased from Rs 18,51,00,000).
- Meetings: three alleged meetings (first at plaintiff’s residence, second with solicitor, third in August 2006 at plaintiff’s residence) with inconsistent pleadings between the two suits.
- Witnesses: PW1 (plaintiff representative), PW2 (former Finance Minister and later Governor, present at first meeting), PW3 (Director of plaintiff company). Their testimonies were found inconsistent, hearsay‑laden, and lacking corroboration.
- Authority of the 6th defendant (son‑in‑law of the 9th defendant) was questioned; no corporate authority to bind the 1st defendant company was shown.
- Letter dated 25‑11‑2006 from the 1st defendant company merely transmitted documents and did not evidence a concluded contract.
- Legal analysis focused on the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC, which requires a plaintiff to claim the whole relief to which the cause of action gives entitlement unless leave is obtained. The Court examined precedents (Brij Mohan, K. Nanjappa, Gurbux Singh, Gurinderpal, Virgo Industries, Vurimi Pullarao, Inbasagaran, Rathnavati, Cuddalore Powergen) to determine that the earlier injunction suit did not include the specific‑performance relief and no leave was granted, making the second suit barred.
- The Court also reiterated that proof of an oral contract must be beyond doubt; inconsistencies, lack of written terms, and the un‑presented cheque undermined the plaintiff’s case.
Final Outcome
- The appeal is allowed.
- The orders of the Trial Court and the impugned order of the High Court are set aside.
- The suit for specific performance is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
- Any pending applications, if any, are rejected.
Topics: Specific Performance, Order II Rule 2 CPC