spb/- 1 cra519-09-525-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 519 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/Petitioners. V/s. M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. M/s. Marico Industries Ltd., ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. M/s. Kanji Morarji & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 522 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. Shri K.G. Kapadia & Ors. , ... Respondents. ----- WITH spb/- 2 cra519-09-525-09.sxw CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. Mrs. M.K. Kapadia & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 524 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. M/s. Lloyd’s Register Industrial Services (I) Pvt.Ltd.,& Ors. ... Respondents. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 525 OF 2009 Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. Shri Nayan K. Kapadia & Ors. , ... Respondents. ----- Mr. V. V. Tulzapurkar, Sr. counsel with Ms. Alpana Ghone i/by M/s. Kanga & Co. for the Applicants/Petitioners in all the CRAs. Ms. Snehal Shah a/with Mr. Ramachandra N. i/by M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan for Respondent No. 1 in CRA Nos.519/09, 520/09 and 521 of 2009. Mr. Ranchandra N. i/by M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan for Respondent No. 1 in CRA Nos. 522/09, 523/09 and 525 of 2009. Mr. N.D. Jaywant for Respondent in CRA No.524 of 2009. ----- spb/- 3 cra519-09-525-09.sxw CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 04th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 All these Revision Applications involve common questions of law and facts and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 2 The revision applicants in these cases had entered into an agreement of sale of office premises with the respondents. The agreements were governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”), but were not duly registered under the Registration Act. On failure of the revision applicant to perform its part under the agreements, the respondents filed separate suits for performance of the agreements by enforcing their statutory rights under the MOFA. In each of the suits, the revision applicant took out a Motion, contending that the plaint dose not disclose any cause of action and praying that the plaint be rejected under the provisions of Rule 11(a) of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By a common order, the trial court dismissed all the Motions. That order is impugned in the present revision applications. spb/- 4 cra519-09-525-09.sxw 3 In my view, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The respondents, who are plaintiffs in the suit have averred that there was an agreement of sale in their favour. They have further averred that the agreement was governed by the provisions of MOFA. They sought to enforce their rights under the MOFA. 4 Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel for the revision applicants submitted that the agreements are not registered and unilateral declaration made by the plaintiff, annexing thereto the copies of the agreements does not amount to registration of the original agreements. Consequently, he submits that the suits are not maintainable. 5 There is difference between maintainability of the suit and the plaint not disclosing any cause of action. Cause of action consists of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff for getting relief in his favour. In the present case, the plaintiffs have made necessary averments for the purpose of getting the reliefs in their favour; may be that they may or may not ultimately entitled to the relief as claimed in the plaint on the ground that agreements are not enforceable in view of the fact that they are not registered as required by MOFA. Mere spb/- 5 cra519-09-525-09.sxw registration of the unilateral declaration with a copy of the agreement annexed may or may not amount to the registration of the agreements, contended by the revision applicants. But that would be decided by the court on merits of the case. It cannot be said that the plaints do not disclose any cause of action. Though the trial court has dismissed the Motion on the different ground, in my view, the ultimate decision is correct. The motion could not have been allowed as each of the plaints does disclose the cause of action. For these reasons, all these Revision Applications are dismissed. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....