7. With the above principle in mind, we looked at the plaint. The various facts we noticed in paragraph 4, as would be evident from the records in the SLP are not germane to the consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 4, and the plaint alone has to be perused. Suffice, on facts, from the plaint, to notice that there were two vacant sites which were the subject of two Joint Venture Agreements entered into on 18.08.2014. Together the land had an extent of 4800 sq. ft., on which 8 flats were to be constructed by the defendant, the plaintiff being the original owner of the property. On completion of the construction, 56% of the total super builtup area of the suit schedule property was to go to the owners and the remaining 44%, both of the undivided share in the land and the super built-up area, had to be conceded to the respondent. Obviously, the construction commenced and while the appellant asserts that it was not completed within the stipulated time, the respondents vehemently contend, at least at the time of cancellation, the entire construction was
