Badal & Ors. vs M/S Niranjan Proptech & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 875 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             CS(OS) No. 1030/2008

%                          Date of Decision: 18.03.2009

Badal & Ors.                                                     .... Plaintiffs
                     Through: Mr. Mike Desai, Advocate.

                                    Versus

M/S Niranjan Proptech & Ors.                        .... Defendants
              Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat and Mr. Abdesh
                        Chaudhary, Advocates for defendant No. 1.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be                     YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                        NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in                    NO
      the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

IA No.8459/2008 in CS(OS) No. 1030/2008

1. This is an application by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11

(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The applicants/defendants have contended that the plaintiffs

have filed the above noted suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated

21st September, 2007 executed by defendant No. 2 as an Attorney of the

plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 is void and illegal and seeking

cancellation of the same and also seeking declaration that the

Agreement to Sell dated 31st January, 2005 executed between the

plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 was void and ineffective and the

cancellation of the said Agreement to Sell and that the Power of

Attorney dated 31st January, 2005 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of

defendant No. 2 being void and ineffective and cancellation of the same

and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing

the plaintiffs from the suit land measuring 9 Bighas and 18 Biswas and

12 Biswanis out of the agricultural land/property forming part of

Mustatil No. 60, Kila No. 4/3 [1-12], 7 [4-8], 8 [4-16], 12 [4-9], 13 Min.

[4-2], 18 Min. [1-4], 23 Min. [0-12], 26 Min. [0-5], 28 [0-17], situated in

the Revenue estate of Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi

or creating any third party interest over the same.

3. The applicants/defendants have contended that the plaintiffs‟

case is that they were the owners of suit land and entered into an

Agreement to Sell dated 31st January, 2005 with defendant No. 3 for a

total consideration of Rs. 15,10,000/- and the Agreement to sell was

registered being Registration No. 1304 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1804

on pages No. 125 to 130, registered with the Sub-Registrar IX, New

Delhi. It is also contended that the plaintiffs had executed a General

Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney dated 31st January,

2005 in favour of defendant No. 2. The Special Power of Attorney was

also registered with the Sub-Registrar IX and the General Power of

Attorney was also registered with the Sub-Registrar IX. It is pleaded

that in part performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 31st January,

2005, plaintiffs were given an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-

4. The applicants/defendants have contended that in the suit filed

by the plaintiffs it is alleged that the plaintiffs were not entitled/capable

of transferring the suit land in view of Section 33 of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954 and, therefore, the plaintiffs have allegedly revoked

the Power of Attorney dated 31st January, 2005 vide Deed of Revocation

dated 10th April, 2007 and a notice dated 15th April, 2007.

5. The applicants/defendants have sought rejection of the plaint on

the ground that the plaint is devoid of cause of action against defendant

No.1 because the plaintiffs have nowhere stated that they have not

received or are yet to receive the balance of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of

Agreement to Sell. It is contended that the plaintiffs had handed over

the suit land to defendant No.3 and possession letter dated 4th

February, 2005 had been issued in favour of defendant No. 3 and since

the date of possession i.e. 4th February, 2005, plaintiffs have

relinquished their rights to possession of the suit land and defendant

No. 3 had been enjoying the peaceful and vacant possession over the

land, It is asserted that the plaintiffs were left with no right or claim or

interest on the suit land.

6. Rejection of the plaint is also sought on the ground that under

Clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell dated 31st January, 2005, the

plaintiffs had to apply and obtain requisite „No Objection Certificate‟

under Section 8 of Delhi Land(Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 and to

check out the impediment under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It

is asserted that on receipt of `No Objection‟ from the requisite

authorities, the plaintiffs had to execute the sale deed in respect of the

demised land in favor of the beneficiaries or the nominees of the

defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs allegedly had applied for requisite

permission before the concerned Additional District Magistrate for `No

Objection‟ which was granted vide No. 3929 dated 6th September, 2007

and thereafter, the sale deeds were executed on 21st September, 2007

within the period of validity as permitted by the competent authority. It

is alleged that the act of execution of the Deed of Revocation within the

period of such validity is a clear act of fraud and dishonesty on the part

of the plaintiffs to deprive the legitimate rights of defendant No.1. It is

contended that there is no legal defect in the Sale Deed dated 21st

September, 2007.

7. Rejection of the plaint is also sought on the ground that after over

three years of the Agreement to Sell, the plea of the plaintiffs that they

did not have the knowledge about the restrictions over land transfer

imposed by Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is nothing

but a clear attempt to deprive the defendant No.1 of the rightful and

lawful ownership of the suit land only with an intention to sell the suit

land for a much higher prices, as the prices in that sector of real estate

have gone up manifold and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for

the relief of decree of declaration and cancellation of Sale Deed dated

21st September, 2007.

8. Rejection of the plaint is also sought relying on Clause 5 of the

Agreement to Sell dated 31st January, 2005 contemplating that the

entire sale consideration has been received by the plaintiffs and the

Power of Attorneys, General and Special dated 31st January, 2005 could

not be revoked after two and a half years of the receipt of the sale

consideration by executing a Deed of Revocation which is also not

registered. Rejection is also sought on the ground that merely sending

a notice of revocation of the Power of Attorney does not entail revocation

of Power of Attorneys, General and Special which were executed in favor

of the defendants.

9. The applicants/defendants have also sought rejection of the

plaint on the ground that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 envisages a restriction on the institution of frivolous

and vexatious suits so that no man gets the benefit of his own wrongs.

In the circumstances, it is asserted that the plaint does not disclose

cause of action and it is liable to be rejected. Rejection of the plaint is

also sought on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is contended

that Agreement to Sell which was executed on 31st January, 2005

cannot be cancelled by instituting a suit on 22nd May, 2008, after three

years from the date of execution.

10. The applicants/defendants have also asserted that the plaintiffs

have misled this Court and have made false averments that they had

not given the possession of the suit land and are still enjoying the

possessory rights over the suit land. It is contended that the plaintiffs

have suppressed the material facts. It is also asserted that the Deed of

Revocation is vague as the plaintiffs had executed two Power of

Attorneys, Special and General and the Deed of Revocation does not

specify as to which Attorney or Attorneys have been cancelled.

11. The applicants/defendants have also sought rejection of the

plaint on the ground that the suit is nothing but an attempt to provide

a legal blanket to otherwise unlawful and illegal and nefarious designs

of the plaintiffs as allegedly the Power of Attorneys in favour of the

defendants have been revoked only on account of Section 33 of Delhi

Land Reforms Act, 1954. In the circumstances, it is contended that the

suit is barred under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC as it does

not disclose any cause of action.

12. The applicants/defendants have also sought rejection of the

plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs are seeking declaration and

cancellation of Agreement to Sell and the Sale Deed, however, ad

valorem court fees has been paid only on one document and in the

circumstances, it is claimed that the suit has not been properly valued

properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and appropriate

court fees has not been paid.

13. The application is contested by the plaintiffs/non-applicants. The

plaintiffs have contended that the application is nothing but a dilatory

tactics by the defendants to avoid filing the written statement and

proceeding with the matter. It is asserted that the defendants know

that the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants,

wherein Agreement to sell was executed and consequent thereof the sale

deeds were executed, were in violation of Section 33 of the Land

Reforms Act. It is also contended that the plea of defendant No. 1 that

the possession has been taken is false to the knowledge of defendants.

The plaintiffs have relied on the photographs filed with the plaint

showing that they are in actual and physical possession of the suit

land.

14. The non-applicants/plaintiffs have contended that the Agreement

to sell dated 31st January, 2005 contemplated that the possession of

the land shall be handed over later on and in fact the possession was

never handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendants. It is contended

that for consideration whether the plaint is liable to be rejected or not,

the pleas raised by the plaintiffs only have to be taken into

consideration and not the defense raised by the defendants. In the

circumstances, it is contended that there are no grounds to reject the

plaint as the plaint discloses the cause of action and the Agreement to

Sell and the Sale Deed being the same transaction, the court fees is not

to be paid separately for cancellation of Agreement to Sell and the Sale

Deed. It is pleaded that on the basis of the pleadings it is apparent that

the total land holding of the plaintiffs was more than what was sold to

the defendants and consequently the transaction between the plaintiffs

and defendants is hit by section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and the

suit for declaration and cancellation of documents, agreement to sell

and sale deed is maintainable and is not liable to be rejected.

15. This cannot be disputed that plaintiffs in the plaint have alleged

that they are owners and in possession of agricultural land measuring

22 Bighas and 5 Bighas comprised in Mustatil No. 60, Kila No. 4/3 [1-

12], 7 [4-8], 8 [4-16], 12 [4-9], 13 Min. [4-2], 18 Min. [1-4], 23 Min. [0-

12], 26 Min. [0-5], 28 [0-17], situated in the Revenue estate of Village

Bijwasan, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. From the plaint, it is also

apparent that the Agreement to Sell with the defendants was for 9

Bighas, 12 Biswas and 12 Biswanis, out of total 22 Bighas and 5

Biswas which was agreed to be sold to the defendant No. 3 for a total

sale consideration of Rs. 15,10,000/- and out of this amount, an

amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid by defendants to the plaintiffs as

earnest money. The plaintiffs have also alleged that they agreed to sell

a part of the balance portion of the agricultural land to Sh. Abhay

Aggarwal S/o Shri M.C. Aggarwal and Shri Sudhir Kumar Makkar S/o

Shri A.N. Makkar by another Agreement to Sell dated 31st January,

2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 22,60,000/-.

16. The plaintiffs have categorically pleaded that since their land

holdings was less than 8 standard acres, they could not sell part of the

land, as the same was in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954 and it was not known to the plaintiffs at the time of

the execution of the Agreement to Sell.

17. Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is as under:-

"33. Restrictions on the transfers by a Bhumidhar. - No Bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift or otherwise any land to any person, other than a religious or charitable institution or any person in charge of any such Bhoodan movement, as the Chief Commissioner may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify , where as a result of the transfer, the transferor shall be left with less than eight standard acres in the Union Territory of Delhi :

Provided that the Chief Commissioner may exempt from the operation of this section, the transfer of any land made before the 1st day of December, 1958, if the land covered by such transfer does not exceed one acre in area and is used or intended to be used for purposes other than those mentioned in clause (13) of section 3.

(2) Nothing contained in sub section (1) shall preclude the transfer of land by a Bhumidhar who holds less than eight standard acres of land, if such transfer is of the entire land held by him;

Provided that such Bhumidhar may transfer a part of such land to any religious or charitable institution or other person referred to in sub section (1)

Explanation - For the purposes of this section, a religious or charitable institution shall mean an institution established for a religious purpose or a charitable purpose, as the case may be."

18. In the circumstances, it is contended that the transfer in favor of

defendants is void and immediately coming to know about it, a notice

dated 15th April, 2007 was sent after General Power of Attorneys were

revoked by a Deed of Revocation dated 10th April, 2007.

19. The plaintiffs have also contended that they offered to pay back

the earnest money/sale consideration, however, the defendants refused

to accept the same and the defendant No.2 acting fraudulently,

executed the sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 1 and the said fact

came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in April, 2008. It is contended

that at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 31st

January, 2005, the possession of the property was not given to the

Attorney, defendant No. 3 and, therefore, when the Sale Deed dated 21st

September, 2007 was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of

defendant No.1, the possession could not be transferred to the

defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for purpose of

declaration for the Sale Deed dated 21st September, 2007 being void

executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 at Rs.

37,77,000/- and ad valorem court fees have been paid thereof.

20. The learned counsel for the defendants/applicants has relied on a

copy of Khasra Girdawari filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for year 2006-

07 contending that the entire land shown in the said Khasra Girdawari

was sold to them except in 60/18 comprising 3 Bighas and 12 Biswas

being Banzar land which vested in the Gaon Sabha, which is apparent

from the Khasra Girdawari. Consequently, it is contended that the

plaintiffs had sold their entire land holdings and, therefore, the

transaction between the parties was not barred under Section 33 of the

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and therefore, the plaint is liable to be

rejected.

21. Rejection of plaint is a serious matter as it non suits the plaintiff

and kills the cause of action and consequently it cannot be ordered

cursorily without satisfying the requirements of the said provision.

Order VII Rule 11 contemplates that a plaint can be rejected where the

plaint does not disclose a cause of action or where the relief claimed is

undervalued or where the relief claimed is properly valued but the

plaint is written upon an insufficiently stamped paper or where the suit

appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In

ascertaining whether the plaint discloses cause of action and that the

suit has been properly valued or not, the pleas raised in the plaint only

have to be considered. For this purpose the defense which is raised by

the defendants is not to be considered on merits nor is the court

competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated

question of law. The mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to

succeed is no ground for striking it out on the ground that it does not

disclose cause of action or inferring that the plaint has not been

properly valued.

22. The purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of

action is distinct from the absence of full particulars. The court has not

to see whether the claim made by the plaintiff is likely to succeed. It has

merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the plaint, if

accepted as true, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he claims. So

long as the plaint discloses some cause of action or raises some

questions fit to be decided by a judge, the plaint is not to be rejected. If

accepting the allegations made in the plaint are accepted as true and

still no case is made out for granting relief, no cause of action would be

shown and the plaint must be rejected. But in ascertaining whether the

plaint shows cause of action the court does not enter upon a trial of the

issues affecting the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff. It cannot

take into consideration the defenses which the defendant may raise

upon the merits; nor is the court competent to make an elaborate

enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact.

23. The effect of dismissal of suit is altogether different and distinct

from the effect of rejection of the plaint. In case plaint is rejected under

Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, filing of a fresh plaint in respect of the same

cause of action is specifically, permitted under Order VII Rule 13, CPC.

Altogether different consequence follows in the event of dismissal of

suit, which has the effect of precluding the plaintiff from filing a fresh

suit on the same cause of action.

Rejection of plaint takes away the very basis of the suit rendering

as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was instituted. Order of

dismissal of suit while recognizing the existence of a suit indicates its

termination. In D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Shanker Raman and Others,

(1999) 3 SCC 267, the Apex Court had held that the effect of dismissal

of a suit is altogether different and distinct from the effect of rejection of

the plaint. For considering whether the plaint discloses cause of action

or not, the pleas and documents of the defendants are not to be

considered. The apex court had held as under:-

"Learned Single Judge fell in error in placing reliance upon the material supplied by the defendant, which alone is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Learned Single Judge instead of proceeding to reject the plaint dismissed the suit, which approach is also erroneous. The effect of dismissal of suit is altogether different and distinct from the effect of rejection of the plaint. In case plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, filing of a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action is specifically, permitted under Rule 13 of Order 7, CPC. Altogether different consequence follows in the event of dismissal of suit, which has the effect of precluding the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Rejection of plaint takes away the very basis of the suit rendering as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was instituted. Order of dismissal of suit while recognising the existence of a suit indicates its termination. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, learned Single Judge ought not and could not have dismissed the suit. Even in the decision of the Supreme Court in T.Arvindandam's case (Supra), relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant, it was held that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and merit-less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Trial Court should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In order to fulfill that ground bare allegation made in the plaint and documents filed therewith were required to be looked into, which in the instant case clearly disclosed at least a cause of action against the defendant that defendant was liable for damages for its acts of omission and commission. It would be an altogether different situation that the plaintiff might not ultimately succeed in

obtaining a decree against the defendant or that Court might come to the conclusion that suit would not be maintainable against the defendant and that plaintiff had a cause of action only against defendant's principal and its parent until in Hong Kong, but such aspect could not have been gone into at this stage. Three paragraphs of the plaint quoted above in our view do clearly disclose cause of action for the plaintiff to claim damages."

In Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC

941, the Supreme Court had held at pages 943-44 as under:-

"By the express terms of Rule 11 clause (a), the court is concerned to ascertain whether the allegations made in the petition show a cause of action. The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims. If accepting those allegations as true no case is made out for granting relief no cause of action would be shown and the petition must be rejected. But in ascertaining whether the petition shows a cause of action the court does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It cannot take into consideration the defences which the defendant may raise upon the merits; nor is the court competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him."

24. According to the defendants, the plaint does not disclose cause of

action and it is liable to be rejected. This cannot be disputed that the

plaintiffs have categorically asserted that they are the owners of 22

Bighas and 5 Biswas of the land. The details of the Mustatil No. 60,

Kila No. 4/3 [1-12], 7 [4-8], 8 [4-16], 12 [4-9], 13 Min. [4-2], 18 Min. [1-

4], 23 Min. [0-12], 26 Min. [0-5], 28 [0-17], situated in the Revenue

estate of Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, are also

given. This is also not disputed by the parties that only 9 Bighas, 18

Biswas and 12 Biswanis have been sold to the defendants. Even out of

balance portion of the land of 22 Bighas and 5 Biswas, only a part has

been sold to Sh. Abhay Aggarwal Aggarwal and Shri Sudhir Kumar

Makkar by another Agreement to Sell dated 31st May, 2005.

25. In the circumstances, the plea of the plaintiffs is that his total

land was 22 Bighas and 5 Biswas out of which a part of land measuring

9 Bighas, 18 Biswas and 12 Biswanis were sold to the defendants and a

part of the balance land, not the entire balance land, was sold to other

purchasers Sh. Abhay Aggarwal and Shri Sudhir Kumar Makkar and

therefore, the transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant is hit by

section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

26. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be

pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the

suit. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a

question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out

from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made

in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as

to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in

their entirety, a decree would be passed.

27. On perusal of the pleadings in the entirety, it is apparent that the

plaintiffs‟ plea is the alleged transfer, transfer by Agreement to Sell

dated 31st January, 2005 and the Sale Deed dated 21st September,

2007 are void in view of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,

1954. This also cannot be disputed that in the plaint it is alleged that

plaintiffs landholding was more than what was sold to the defendants.

From the averments made in the plaint it is also apparent that after

selling the land to the defendants, the landholding of the plaintiffs was

less than eight standard acres. In the circumstances it cannot be held

that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. Even on the basis of

the copy of Khasra Girdawari which is filed by the plaintiffs, which does

not reflect the entire land and only a portion of the land, which had

been sold to defendants leaving a part of the land, which is allegedly

vest with Gaon Sabha, it cannot be held that the entire land holding

was sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants or the plaintiffs was left with

more than eight standard acres of land. On this ground, therefore, the

plaint cannot be rejected.

28. The plaintiffs have also alleged that they have cancelled the

Attorneys executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants by a

Deed of Revocation. The plea of the learned counsel for the defendants

that the Registered Deeds could not be revoked by a Deed of Revocation

which does not disclose that all the Power of Attorneys had been

cancelled and that the deed of revocation is not registered will also not

entail rejection of the plaint. Even if the power of attorney in favor of the

defendants have not been revoked, the suit will be maintainable and not

liable for rejection, if the transaction between the plaintiffs and

defendants is hit by provisions of Delhi Land Reform Act. The main

relief in the plaint is that the conveyance executed by them in favour of

defendants is hit by Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

and after coming to know about the same, they offered entire sale

consideration to the defendants. However, they refused to take it back

and, therefore, the plaintiffs have also revoked the deeds by giving a

notice and the present suit for declaration and cancellation has been

filed. The plaint cannot be rejected on this ground that registered deeds

executed in favor of defendants have been cancelled by a deed of

revocation which is not registered and by sending a notice. The plaintiff

has claimed declaration and cancellation of the conveyance deed

executed in favor of defendant being hit by section 33 of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act in the plaint and therefore on the basis of defense put up

by the defendants, the plaint cannot be rejected.

29. The learned counsel for the applicants has also alleged that the

suit is barred by time and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

Agreement to Sell and Sale Deed by the defendants are part of the same

transaction for the same property. The Sale Deed was executed on 21st

September, 2007 and the suit for declaration and cancellation has been

filed on 23rd May, 2008 which is within time. In the circumstances,

prima facie the suit is not barred by time. On the basis of the pleas of

the defendants/applicants that the suit is barred by time, the plaint

cannot be rejected. Similarly, though the consideration which was

agreed between the parties was Rs. 15,10,000/-, however, for the

purpose of cancellation of the deeds, the suit has been valued by the

plaintiffs at Rs. 37,77,000/-. Since the Agreement to Sell and the Sale

Deed are part of the same transaction, whose cancellation is sought,

therefore, for the purpose of cancellation and declaration the suit is

valued at Rs. 37,70,000/- and the ad valorem court fees paid thereon,

which is prima facie not deficient and cannot be a ground to direct the

plaintiffs to pay the deficient court fees and on failure of the plaintiffs to

pay the alleged deficient court fees, the plaint is not liable to be

rejected. The plaint also cannot be rejected on the ground that the

plaintiffs have received the entire sale consideration as it is not stated

in the plaint that the plaintiffs have not received Rs.10,000/- balance

sale consideration. Merely on the basis of allegations made by the

defendants it cannot be inferred that the suit of the plaintiffs is

vexatious and frivolous and the plaintiffs shall not be entitled for the

benefits of their own wrongs.

30. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the application for

rejection of the plaint is without any legal basis and is misconceived

and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The application is therefore,

dismissed Parties are however left to bear their own costs.

CS(OS) No.1030/2008

The learned counsel for defendant No. 1 seeks time to file the

written statement.

Written statement be filed within four weeks. Replication to the

written statement, if any, shall be filed within four weeks thereafter.

Issue summons to defendants No. 2 and 3 by ordinary process

and registered A.D.post on plaintiffs‟ taking steps within one week,

returnable for 2nd July, 2009.

IA No. 6620/2008 in CS(OS) No.1030/2008

Learned counsel for defendant No. 1 seeks time to file the reply.

Reply be filed within four weeks.

Issue notices to defendants No. 2 and 3 by ordinary process and

registered A.D.post on plaintiffs‟ taking steps within one week,

returnable for 2nd July, 2009.

MARCH 18, 2009                                         ANIL KUMAR, J.
sb